Talk:Islam and Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam and Judaism is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II Wikify: Category:Jewish Encyclopedia inline citations should be changed to footnotes and edited for comprehensibility. Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

See also: Talk:Islam and anti-Semitism

This page was originally created when someone moved the Islam and anti-Semitism article. It was then moved it back by cutting and pasting (the unfortunate side-effect of which was loss of history). Wikipedia apologises for any inconvenience this may cause.

Is this all original work? -- Zoe

Most of it now is cut-and-pasted from the 1906 public domain Jewish Encyclopedia. It still needs a lot of editing and work. RK

The first half of this article has been emiting POV for quite sometime without any major wikifying or neutralization by the contributors. "...the most ignorant and careless minds." "...almost as credulously and rashly as any. Nor does he ever dream of verifying a quotation." Usedbook

Good point. Will work on it. Given the points made, it is critical to address the issue of intellectual integrity, and mention must be made that many supposed quotes from the Hebrew Bible, in fact, do not exist at all. But it can be phrased more carefully, and in an NPOV fashion. RK 15:31, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why doesn't somebody add a paragraph or two about Prophet Mohammad's treatment of the Jews after they refused to follow his teachings? --Vladko 15:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Coran as "completion of revelations" and the New testament 2 Section that I want to add to the article 2.1 Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad 3 Injil, Tawrat and Zubur 4 Why isn't this article called Judaism and Islam? 5 Conflicts error 6 Conflicts Error Again 6.1 Disputed Text 7 Historical Section

[edit] Coran as "completion of revelations" and the New testament

I have a slight feeling that perhaps the reference to the New Testament should really be to the Gospels. The Arabic word used is always injíl which is used in Christianity to mean Gospel (New testament in Arabic is al-3ahd al-jadid), and as far as I know all the Epistles in the New testament are widely considered later additions by Islamic scholars and not part of the revelation; I suspect this may also apply to the Acts and Apocalypse. Palmiro | Talk 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section that I want to add to the article

This is a section that I want to add to the article:

[edit] Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad

The first conflict between followers of Islam and those of Judaism was between the years 623 and 627.

When the Prophet Muhammad first established Islam as a religion the tribes lived in the Arabian Peninsula included a number of Jewish tribes as well as Christians and pagans. The Jewish tribes included the Banu Qainuqa and the Banu Quraiza. Some of the Jewish tribes lived in the area of the city of Yathrib (subsequently renamed al-Madina) and around the oasis of Khaybar.

In the years of 623 - 627 Islam started to spread in the Arabian peninsula, and conflicts erupted between the Muslims and the Jewish tribes.

According to some, the defeat of the Jewish tribes was actually caused by a dispute within the Jewish tribes in which the Jewish tribes divided into two "factions" - the "peoples of peace", who believed to Muhammad's promises to life in coexistence between the tribes, and the "peoples of war" who demanded Muhammad's defeat. In the argument the peoples of peace won and they agreed to come to Medina and to lay down their arms in front of Muhammad's army. All the warriors were butchered after they lay down their arms. Last to be defeated by Muhammad was the tribes of Jews who lived in Khaybar, who was defeated after Muhammad violated after a year and a half the Hudna agreement which was signed between Muhammad to the Jews of Khaybar in March 628 for 10 years.

The event of the defeat of the Jews of Khaybar is mentioned in context with the late wars of Islam, and in Palestinian demonstrations the next call is heard to remind this event:

Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud Jaish Mukhamad Sa Ya'ud

translation:

remember Khaybar, Jews, Muhammad's army will return

is someone object to that that I will add this section to the article? Toya 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason at all why the conflicts between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes shouldn't be included in this article. On the other hand, I am not sure about the precision of this particular version. I think we need a better version that cites sources. We also need the sentence "The event of the defeat of the Jews of Khaybar is mentioned in context with the late wars of Islam" to be sourced and clarified - I don't understand what it intends to convey or what it is referring to as the "late wars of Islam" Palmiro | Talk 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Palmiro on all points. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Injil, Tawrat and Zubur

I am less than convinced that there is a difference between Injil and Tawrat, on the one hand, and Gospel and Torah on the other. Injil and Tawrat are simply the Arabic words used for Gospel and Torah. This is like saying that Allah is different from God. That Muslims generally believe that the actual texts held by Chrstians and Jews have been corrupted is entirely true. That the Arabic and English words mean different things is quite a surprising position. Palmiro | Talk 15:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that surprising; 'Allah' and 'God' generally refer to the same thing: creator of the universe etc., but the Christian and Islamic ideas of exactly what this means are different - so in this sense, they do not mean the same thing (there are even more subtle differences, for example, 'God' can be pluralised to give 'Gods', but the same cannot be said of 'Allah'). The same argument is used for the Injil, Tawrat and Zabur. In the Qur'an, when it says that these scriptures were given to Moses, Jesus etc., it refers to the original scriptures. Christians and Jews generally believe that these scriptures are the ones they have today, Muslims don't. In any case, if 'Injil', for example, does mean 'Gospel', then people can be misled into thinking that this refers to an actual (present day) 'Gospel', whereas this is not what is meant. To clarify further, the word 'Kutub' translates directly as 'books' (quite generally), but when used in Islam, it refers specifically to the original revealed books given to Jesus, Moses and David and Muhammad. MP (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hum. I have a feeling we could spend pages on the ins and outs of this, but I have just looked at the page Tawrat and think it represents quite a good and even-handed way of dealing with the issue. To elaborate on my view anyway, part of the problem is that while you may use the Arabic terms in English to refer to specifically Islamic concepts as opposed to general concepts, this ignores the fact that only one word exists in Arabic. If I go to a mass in my local church (which I don't, but for argument's sake), i hear a reading from the "inj�l"! Also, Muslims too refer to the present-day Christian gospels as the "injil". I'm not sure that the use of the Arabic forms in English is generalised or generally accepted, and certainly it is bound to strike any Arabic-speaking Christian as highly peculiar. Palmiro | Talk 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this discussion could go on for a while. How about this: we minimise the parts in the article which discuss exactly what the Tawrat is, and hence leave the controversy for the article Tawrat (and similar remarks would apply to Injil and Zabur) ? MP (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems a very reasonable suggestion. Would you like to try your hand at it? Palmiro | Talk 16:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go. MP (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've attempted to eliminate the Tawrat/Torah, Injil/Gospel etc. controversy. I'm not sure I can make any other changes without reintroducing the controversy. I hope this version will keep everyone happy. :) MP (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Palmiro | Talk 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this article called Judaism and Islam?

--Greasysteve13 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it the sequence is alphabetical?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.32.8 (talk • contribs).

Seems inconsistent: (See: Similarities between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity)--Greasysteve13 10:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

None is better than the other, it's just coincidence people.

[edit] Conflicts error

The conflict section contains many statements that cannot be verified. They contain link that do not support what the writer is attempting to say. I am going to erase that whole section as the links do not supports the statements. Yes i did read the links and n reference to some of the statements are made. The sources also seem to biased. The site is pro israeli and american thus killing its nuetrality. Please do not revise unless sufficient sources are cited.

[edit] Conflicts Error Again

Someone reverted the conflict section again. They list cites that do not even support the statement. The citation are useless. Secondly all the cites are from a non-nuetral source. Please do no revert that section. if someone wants to revert it please discuss it here. HAMM 11/01/06

Can you be more specific please? The section in question is properly cited from a reasonable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Go back and look into every citation for each sentence. The citation does not back up the sentence. Sure the citation do correlate but do not state what the editor is citing it as. That section should be deleted. How is a non nuetral source a "resonable source". You might as well be citing the Quran and Bible as "resonable" also.Read through the sources and I will allow you to edit it accordingly. IF no response in 12 days i will delete it.

11/13/06 HAMM

I've deleted the paragraph. Plz keep it out of here for it does nothing for the article but turn the ocus on conflicts once again. This article should focus objectively on the shared history of these two religions and not be one of many articles that only fuels the conflicts that exist between the two. If you really want to address the conflicts I suggest you make another article for that.

Please cite a specific claim, and explain why it is not correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment again and think it through. Further, for one refs are from a non-neutral source (jewish virtuallib/antisemitism) and note also the subtle confusion between arabs and muslims in this section. This article is supposed to be about the shared history between two of the three great monotheistic religions, not about conflicts between arab people and jewish people. Believe me, there are more than enough articles about that subject on WP.

Please cite a specific claim, and explain why it is not correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is about the 'umpteenth time you've reverted edits concerning this section, both mine and other people's. All of the time without any consideration. I am sorry you don't feel the need to connect with others, but the position you're taking at present borders between arrogance and Asperger. If you need arguments, read any of the above. You are always free to disagree, but if you'd try to respond instead of being so passive-aggressive. Also see the notes i put up especially for you, below.

[edit] Disputed Text

Medina used to be the Jewish city of Yathrib.

-What does this statement say? A whole lot of cities in the world have changed hands over the time. If you mean to note a commonality between Judaism and Islam by mentioning this, I suggest you elaborate a bit further. Otherwise, it's redundant.

On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

-I do not dispute the factual information mentioned above, but I do severely object the language used here and on below, it's just slaughter killing and anger all around. And further, I ask what these facts try to represent for this article. To quote myself: "This article should focus objectively on the shared history of these two religions and not be one of many articles that only fuels the conflicts that exist between the two."

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner".[2] The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco. [3]

- Same as above. What is the meaning of this text for this article?

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities;[4] Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews;[5] Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

- Etcetera, etcetera

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in [6]Egypt and [7] Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), [8] Iraq(854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Quran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in [9]Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and [10]Baghdad (1333 and 1344).

-I find this struggle to edit a small section of a semi-obscure article very strange indeed. Who is this Jayjj and what is he thinking? Why does he so desperately want to keep a non-fitting section about Moorish people violently killing Spanish jews in a very general article about the historical interaction between Islam and Judaism?

Please Jay, if you would share more of your reasoning behind this maybe others can understand!

I'm trying to understand your reasoning. You say the facts are accurate, but that they shouldn't be included anyway? Are you trying to whitewash the subservient and often threatened position Jews had in Muslim countries? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start about me whitewashing history. It should be clear I am not trying to do that at all. I'm only saying I don't think every conflict between Jews and Arabs should be included in an article about the shared history between Judaism and Islam. There are enough articles about that already, try Islam and anti-semitism for example. I think that point is clear by now.

But aren't you getting tired of the fact that whenever Jews and Arabs get mentioned in the same article ther always has to be a lot of text about how they cannot get along throughout the centuries. Everybody knows that by now, and also there are a lot of articles already about that as I mentioned. Wouldn't it be great to have an article (be it just one) that tries to point at the common aspects (and the beauty) of these two world religions. And one more thing, for example after the inquisition loads of Jews fled from Christian persecution to Arab lands like Morocco and were allowed to live there in peace. So it's not all black and white. If you really want to keep this conflict section it should also include positive examples and maybe also a section about Jew-on-Muslim slaughtering and the like. For balance, you know. But I really think that is not a good idea and you should understand that by now.

Two questions I would like to have answered this time: why do you keep reverting without discussing first? Let's try to reach consensus about this text instead of revving over and over again. And why in (insert your god here)'s name do you keep changing the Jihad link to link directly to Jihad as warfare. You know what I mean. That is disgusting. Maybe you have had a lot of bad experiences, maybe your family, but try to understand that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty creatures. Because with all your little edits you are definitely implying things that are not very fair.

And before you pull me some antiwhatever card (me whitewashing history went far enough as it is), please note also that I myself am Jewish. I am just not one who wants to keep riding the endless cycle of hate and misunderstanding for ever. Now one more time Jay, let's try to reach agreement. I will not del the section this time as a show of good faith, but I would like a more in-depth response this time. Tell me why the section should be kept (and please, it takes more than just having citations to have a piece of text be relevant).

First off a dialogue, WOW, thanks everyone. Now to the point even with these dialogues this post remains exactly the same. Here is the problem with this, the statements you provide have no ciataions. Tha citations do nat back up the statement.

For example: "Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner".[2]" I cannot find that in any of the sources. The rest of the statements are the same way. Secondly, this can be a dangerous touch off point. Someone else had the foresight and mentioned this above me. You only having muslims conflict with Jews opens a door for someone to enter statements about Jews massacaring muslims like in Palestine . Don't get defensive it is just an example and if anybody got offended then you should realise the flame you are playing with. WHY HAVE THIS SECTION. a statement like this would be sufficient: There has been major conflicts between the religions that have implications until this day.

"the subservient and often threatened position Jews had in Muslim countries?" Jay that is a high flame you play with. Your ignore the majority of history and focus a few isolated incidents. The same can be said of the muslim position in Palestine/ Israel. Don't isolate history.

HAMM -- 11/28/06

Q: perhaps for the moment place a

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

?

The more I read the disputed section the more I am convinced this entire section should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch. The citations do NOT back up the statements made in the text. The wording is quite POV. Even the lay-out differs from the rest of the article. Not that I am per se against mentioning religious conflicts, but done this way it does this article no good at all. It should be scrapped or rewritten. I think every able-bodied person would agree on this. The cites do NOT back up the statements made. I will del the section after this weekend, if there are no further developments. If the section gets reinstated again without any discussion or arguments (RE:JAyjg) other steps will have to be taken. There are lots of initiatives for debate here but so far there has been no real response from the person who keeps reverting without thinking twice. 87.212.6.200 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Section

I have rewritten/edited the entire Historical section, trying to get some resolve in the ongoing dispute about the conflicts subsection. And adding some more general background info and links.

The positions taken in the discussion about the conflicts subsection were that it was badly written, out-of-line with the rest of the article (my position) and that the citations did not support the actual wording (Re:HAMM). But also, the content was deemed relevant, and the citations were not found unreliable (Re:Jayjg).

This rewrite tries to adress all these issues. So please do not revert without looking or edit with too crude a scissors, discuss here first. It took me quite some time. 87.212.6.200 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, any thoughts about my other edits on this article? 87.212.6.200 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I definatley support this one even though i think some changes still can be made. Some changes could possibly adding a reference of the 3 wars in the last century. A sentence would suffice that. I think also noting how Jews and Muslims have acuallty fought on the same sides of many battles. A quote would also serve this section well. thats my feedback lets here everyone else HAMM 12-04-06