Talk:Islamic–Jewish relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

See also

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.

See also: Talk:Islam and anti-Semitism

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)

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)

Section that I want to add to the article

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

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)

Agree with Palmiro too, citations needed because I remember reading a history book where it's cited that Jews of Khaybar violated the Hudna(agreement) not Muhammad, If I'm correct the author stated the fact that other Jewish tribes survived and were part of the new Islamic Empire as Dhimmis because they respected the Hudna. Bestofmed (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why isn't this article called Judaism and Islam?

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

Perhaps it the sequence is alphabetical?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk)

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.

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.

blessings

i want to make a tablet of simmilarities between judaism and islam

like a tablet wich will say "judaism"\"islam"

circomsision - V V

eating Sea foood V X

can someone please showme how, thanks!.

"The relationship between Islam and Judaism is a special and close one."

This is definitely not non-POV, as the adjectives "special" and "close" are subjective. Anyway, many would disagree that the two religions share a "special" and "close" relationship. This sounds like it was written to make Muslims feel good about themselves.184.59.7.32 (talk)

Conflicts error (2)

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.

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 POV-tag?

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)

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

"Judaism and Islam are also unique in having systems of religious law based on oral tradition which can over-ride the written laws"

this is not true.for muslims it may be so but jews follow the written torah over the oral one. so can you please change this

The sentence merely refers to following religious laws over written (common) laws, something wich applies to both Islam and Judaism. Feer 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Qu'ran on the Jews

Thanks for adding this section Aminz, but can you explain as to why you think this section is relevant to this article. I'm inclined myself to delete the whole section.

In my opinion this article should first and foremost be about the things Islam and Judaism have in common as religions (origins etc.). I'm not disputing the info you added - although you added a POV tag to the section yourself? I just think the info belongs in some other article, maybe even have it's own article (if it doesn't already exists). Feer 13:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create it:) I moved it from another place and I think it needs more work. You are right. It doesn't belong here. How is The Qur'an and the People of the Book? --Aminz 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section was created as a content fork. I wish to point out that the article People of the Book already exists. Beit Or 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, if you're interested maybe you can write a little something about the Israiliyat. It's not really my area of expertise, maybe you know something (or know someone who knows) about this. Never mind, it's located at Isra'iliyat. Damn those spelling variations. Feer 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the Isra'iliyat article is not very substantial right now. It could use some expansion. Feer 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

References et al.

Thanks for placing the unreferenced tag. I agree the article could definitely use some more references and/or citations. Please note, however, that parts of the text are from the public domain version of the Jewish Encyclopedia and from other works mentioned at the bottom of the article.

Also, placing a {{Fact}} tag after a disputed/unreferenced sentence should obviously be preferred to tagging the entire article.

Finally, on a more personal note - whilst I strongly agree to references and/or cites being very very important, I do hope this will not lead to any kind of ref-warring, quote-mining and the likes. I see too many articles (especially on Jewish-Muslim topics) degrading into some kind of quotation trench warfare with a list of footnotes the size of the Empire State Building.

Feer 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the Judaism template is more relevant than the Jew template, so let's use that one. I think adding both to the article is unneseccary. Feer 13:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Template location

There are two reasons why the Judaism template should be on top:

1. The Judaism template is much larger. Thus the aesthetics are better to have it on top.
2. Consistency with Christianity and Islam, where the template of the opposite religion comes first (meaning Islam template then Christianity template).--Sefringle 05:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are not valid arguments. Esthetics are never absolute (a matter of personal taste) and the consistency with Christianity and Islam you speak of is very far-sought. Feer 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, dicussing about this is a futile marginality. So let's just keep it the way it is (yep, Judaism on top) and hope the Judaism template will become less bloated with time. Feer 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion versus Politics

This article is about Judaism and Islam. More specifically, it is about Judaism, Islam and their common origins, other commonalities, and influences on each other as religions. To me, this does not include extensive coverage of the many political issues between Muslims and Jews that exist and have existed. While some major events should be mentioned if they had a substantial influence in the interaction between the two faiths, this does not mean subjects like Islamic antisemitism or other atrocities should be summarized ad nauseam.

This is not about down-playing anything, please, rather an attempt to keep this article doing what is is here for. Because of the obvious tensions between Muslims and Jews in real life at the moment (and also a bit on Wikipedia) I have long feared this article eventually becoming one more political battleground. Working on this article has learned me many things that lie beyond the current antagonism between the two faiths, things maybe a bit overshadowed by all the political strife. It has suprised me to learn that Islam and Judaism actually have so much in common.

To Sefringle: In line with these words, I have removed a lot of your edits. I feel sorry for doing this, especially since you took care of referencing and such. But this amount of this kind of info just doesn't really belong to this article. But I am sure there's an other article where your info can find a good place. Maybe put it on Islam and antisemitism and place a further reading tag to point readers there?

Feer 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Antisemitism is an important and major part of the interaction between muslims and Jews. At a bare minimum, there needs to be a summary of the Islam and Antisemitism article in this article. I see this article as completely unsourced pro-islam bias. I tried to minimize the modern relationship to a paragraph, but something needs to be said about it.

Also, something needs to be said about the Islamic texts and Jews. Whether positive or negative, and/or a comparision, this needs to be mentioned. This article is highly one sided to portray the relationship as positive when it hasn't always been. We can't just compare the religions.

The other problem with this article is the lack of sources. If I remove all unsourced material, there would be no imformation remaining. I think the unreferenced tag needs restoration.--Sefringle 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish prophets

I removed the sentence " Both unlike Christianity, accept Job as a prophet." since Jews don't consider him as a prophet. Moreover mainstream Orthodox Jews consider the story of Job as allegory and not as event that really happened. (oren tal 14 June 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.149.74 (talk)

You are completely wrong the story is considered completely true and he is considered a prophet by the talmud--Java7837 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Man I am former religious Jew.Now I am atheist but I learned in the Yeshiva.Job was never consider as prophet.Moreover there is debate if the story of Job ever happen or it was only allegory.When I asked my Rabbi he told me that the mainstream consider it as allegory although there is no agreement about it and many Jews consider it as true.But in any case he was never referred as prophet. Oren.tal 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is from the Jewish Encyclopedia:"Owing to the importance of the Book of Job, the Talmudists occupied themselves frequently with its chief character. One of the amoraim expressed his opinion in the presence of Samuel b. Namani that Job never existed and that the whole story was a fable (B. B. 15a). " http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=330&letter=J&search=Job

The Talmud lists an abundance of opinions as to when Job lived, and one, which you quoted, that the story is allegorical. --Eliyak T·C 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

prophet Muhammed

Wasnt one Muhammed's(pbuh) wives Jewish? i beleive he married a jew to establish trust between the 2 communites.Definately should be mentioned in the article as it's one of the first interactions between the 2 religions.-Vmrgrsergr 05:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We cannot include it without a source.--Sefringle^Talk 05:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant i don't see the point of mentioning that besides she was forced to marry him that would only decrease the view of muslims in the west when it is already very low--Java7837 04:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support your statement that Muhammad's Jewish wife was married to him by force? --205.177.25.11 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

there are Hadith that say that Muhammad ordered that killing of her father and husband.It was by force.Oren.tal (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the classical Muslim view is that none of the wives were married to him by force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.16.210 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I suggest we discuss the recent edits here and try to find some middle ground. The cycle should go: bold, revert, discuss and not just bold, revert, bold, revert etc. Feer 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, would you please state what the problem with the content you removed is. It is well sourced and relevant, is it not?--Sefringle^Talk 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's audacious: first add POV forks and biased wording and then ask why someone would object? This is not a case of removing content, it's a case of adding biased content without argumentation and consensus. Things should obviously be the other way around, first discussing what needs to be added and, most importantly, why it is relevant here. This article is about the things Judaism and Islam have in common, and in what way they differ, as religions. I would appreciate discussing these things first before making any controversial changes, that's what talk pages are here for after all. Feer 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the things Judaism and Islam have in common, and in what way they differ, as religions. No. This article is about the relationship between Judaism and Islam, and that includes the ways muslims and Jews have treated each other. I added 4 things:

1. Info about Muhammad's views on the Jews; I think the relevance here is clear.
2. A more neutral summary to the modern times section about the role of the Arab-israeli conflict; detialling the Arab citizens of Israel and not the Jewish exodus from arab lands is POV.
3. Detials about the history, where Jews were persecuted was added by someone else; the relevance here is also pretty clear. Prehaps you can explain what you find irrelevant.
4. Added main articles for all the sections.

Maybe you can explain which information is a "POV fork", and how it is such. If it is such, there also is nothing stopping you from adding other information about the ralationship, or changing the wording to make it less POV without removing the content.--Sefringle^Talk 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The pictures of the prophets

In Islam (and judaism), it's totally prohibited to portray the prophets and make pictures of them. therefore i request removing both images made for Prophets Muhammad and Moses (peace be upon them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAminHabash (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not censored.--Sefringle^Talk 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Judaism does not forbid depictions of prophets unless the image is worshipped by pagans--69.153.65.22 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of G-d are forbidden under any circumstances--129.115.102.13 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish prophets and misconception

Islam consider any figure as a prophet including, King david, King Solomon, Adam etc. None of the figures I have metioned are considered as prophets in Judaism. There are people who considered as prophets according to Judaism. However Abraham is not a prophet as never said any prophecy. No doubt he is very important in Judaism but prophets are only those who said prophecy or those were labeled as prophets like prophet Nathan. Abraham was called Avram Avinu.Don't creat misconception by calling them prophets according to Judaism.They religious figure in Judaism and may have some title but not prophet.Indeed in Islam they are prophets but that don't make them to be prophets in Judaism.Oren.tal 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

wrong the torah calls Abraham a prophet in Genesis 20

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=20&version=31

--Java7837 00:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Yhis web site is Christian and not Jewish.Oren.tal 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a bible searching porgram you idiot--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) It is still Christian website.132.72.71.59 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Also Talmud Sections, an abridged version of the narratives found in Talmud calls Kenan a prophet

Jewish Encyclopedia says concerning (Tan., Wayesheb, 20) That Joseph is extolled by the Rabbis for being well versed in the Torah, for being a prophet, and for supporting his brothers

Also Baba Bathra 15b calls Job a prophet

Seder Olam, another Jewish text predating Islam calls Eber, a prophet --Java7837 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC) There are othe Talmud that say that the story of job is fiction.Oren.tal 12:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong the talmud goes to great lengths to prove Job existed one sage quoted in Midrash Rabba was skeptical of the story attributed to Job but not the existence of Job--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No you are wrong.The Amorai say explicitcly that Job never existed.Oren.tal 13:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow i know hindus who know more about Judaism than you guys thinking we don't consider Abraham a prophet. --Java7837 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It says clearly in Genesis 20 that Abraham was a prophet. Also we got almost 10 times as many prophet as Muslims. Muslims have 124,000 prophets while Jews have 1,200,000 prophets. We also have many female prophets--Java7837 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know from where you have taken this number but Jews don't have 124,000.Look like you don't know too much about Judaism.Oren.tal 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I said muslims have 124,000 prophets--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jews have 1,200,000 prophets according to the talmud, half of that number are female and the other half are male--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm lists most but not all of the people called prophet in the talmud or rashi on that list is king solomon and king david. --Java7837 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC) King Salomon and king david are by nu mean prophet according to Judaism and you should start to use in reliable sources.Oren.tal 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am using a reliable source you idiot--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Talmud Sanhedrin 93b says that David was given the gift of prophecy--129.115.102.13 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

At least learn a little about Judaism before you make self look stupid honestly how can you say the first prophet in Judaism was Samuel everyone i thought knew that Moses is considered the greatest prophet in Judaism it says clearly in Scripture there will never be a prophet greater than Moses--Java7837 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I know much more about Judaism than you ever know.The fact that Islam consider people as prophets don't make them to be consider in Judaism.Oren.tal 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a liar I am an Orthodox Jew, I have read many midrashim, and parts of the Talmud.--129.115.102.13 12:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC) First I am not liar and I grow in Ortodox Jew family.The fact that I left religion don't change that and I think you are the liar.I think you are Muslim imposer as Jew.132.72.71.59 13:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The essential meaning of the Hebrew word "Navi" ("prophet") can be seen in Exodus 7:1, which says, "God said to Moses: See, I have made you a Lord ('Elohim' = God) to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your speaker ('navi' = prophet)." This clearly a play on words, and shows that a navi in essence is one who speaks a message from God, not one who sees visions. Rashi on that pasuk says so explicitly.

The Talmudic source for this is found in Tractate Megillah 3A, which says the following: [Regarding Daniel as opposed to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah]: They are better than him, and he is better than them; they are better than him, for they were prophets and he was not a prophet; he is better than them, for he saw and they did not see (in Daniel 10:7)." Rashi there explains that Daniel was never told to speak a prophecy to Israel. --Eliyak T·C 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

According to both Rashi and the Seder Olam, Avraham Avinu is considered one of the 48 prophets of Judaism (Megillah 14a). Also see the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim which lists Avraham as having the 2nd highest level of prophecy after Moshe. -- Avi 15:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

misconception about the Talmud

Talmud for itself is dialog between difreent Rabbi.The fact that some Rabbi say opinion doesn't mean that his opinion was accepted like Java7837 tend to think.We can not use the Talmud without know anything about it like Java7837.People should aware that the Talmud contain varied opinions.Everythime there is dailog and finally they get conclusion.The conclusion only should be consider as the opinion of Judaism and NOT every opinion that were mention.Oren.tal 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I add the word "not" that I forgot.(sorry for that).However even with my mistake still the answer down id ridiculs.Oren.tal 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong it contains the mishnah which is from Moses and the dialog around it in which a conclusion is reached--129.115.102.13 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know to read or what.The fact that it contain the Mishnah (itself collection of books of dialog between Rabbis) don't change the fact that the Talmud is collection of dialog.The meaning that the Oral Tora is from Moses is in the aspect that what the Rabbis intoduced in the Talmud is part of the tradition they can track to the days of Moses.Ther was non-acceptance between them and they argue with each other.Indeed conculsion is reached there but that mean that the conclusion represnt Judaism and not every opinion that happen to be there.Unless there is disagreement about the subject.anyway I don't understand what make you to think that in what you wrote you contradict what I have said before.Oren.tal 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And by the way the tradition is also that the Talmud from Moses but people should understand what it mean.It mean that the conclusion they reach is the oral tradition that came from Moses.Oren.tal 00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all the Mishnah contains dialog between the Rabbis some does but not all--69.153.72.7 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

conversion of Jews to Islam

This article is about Judaism and Islam. I don't see what does that has to do here.

I think it should be deleted.132.72.151.98 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That section was previously an article in and of itself. Some editors felt that there were some POV problems with it, amongst many other things. Whatever the case, it was largely agreed that the topic did not warrant its own article. A proposal was made to move it here, which obviously succeeded. I actually think it is appropriately placed here, if anywhere.--C.Logan (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict mentioned in introduction

Can someone more well-versed and knowledgeable in the subject add something to the introduction about the conflict between Jews and Muslims? I mean, obviously, that's a huge part of the relationship between Islam and Judaism, and it's not even mentioned in the opening. The way the section's written now, all we know about the relationship between these two religions is that they have a relationship, and the two religions are kind of similar. VolatileChemical (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Somewhere in this elegantly-written article is, or was, depending on who got there last, a quote purportedly from one Khaleel Mohammed. This gentleman is an associate professor of religion at San Diego State or some such place, so he is at the very least not the sort of hedge scholar we normally suffer through in such articles. Do we use his published work? No. Perhaps a paper, which, even if not peer-reviewed, he hosts on his website? No. Perhaps, then, an op-ed in a reasonable newspaper? No. We use a supposed interview given to an internet-only site normally associated with the likes of Ann Coulter. We, of course, assume good faith and trust those fine unbiased journalists to report an interview correctly.

Even given that, are we using the central thrust of this supposed interview? Or are we mining it for a throwaway example that happens to make a claim not reproduced elsewhere? The latter, of course, in our normal manner, the manner which causes or methods and policies to be respected and duplicated throughout the academic world.

Ah, but at least it is a point that is relevant, and that other policies suggest we should include, correct? After all, we are committed to those policies, are we not? It surely could not be the case that in the course of explicating this throw-away example this gentleman, in the dastardly even-handed manner of academics, acknowledges that his view is a crushing minority? Because that would be spitting in the face of our core policies, the sort of thing none of us does. Even if he were to imply it, surely explaining the fact that his views were a crushing minority would not be the central point of his anecdote? Because if then his supposed views, from an off-hand example, on an unreliable website, were quoted without comment, that would cross the border into ludicrousness. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now we have replaced the anecdote with the interview that was the subject of the anecdote. Remember, the main subject of the anecdote was how very fringe his views expressed were in that interview. Ah, neutrality. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What's unreliable about a statement from a professor in a reliable source? I should also add that this still would have been acceptable even cited through FPM due to the status of the source (a professor), as the RSN discussion about FPM and CounterPunch concluded. - Merzbow (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Except when the professor is declaring his view is fringe, and we're quoting an anecdote. Surely you see that this is not really scholarly material? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If you're talking about this article (another reliable source for his words, which I'll add since the existing source has no URL), he does not say his view is fringe, he is saying it was denounced by "Muslim community leaders". And we all know how reliable the views are of religious community leaders for determining what is fringe, because we have no articles on Evolution... err wait... - Merzbow (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please read the entire journal article cited above. Khaleel goes into five pages of detail about why he believes his 95% figure to be supported, so this is not just an anecdote we're talking about. - Merzbow (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The original link was to the Toronto Star, wasn't it? Anyway.

I thought that your case was made until I actually read this article. He does not support his 95% at all. Again, being a decent chap, he says so out front: he will attempt, he says to provide "an iota" of proof, and not more. That's about how much he manages, given his last paragraph: "Almost every single mosque or prayer center that I have attended subscribes to the authority of the sources that I have cited above. In addition to this experiential input, the math for my estimate is simple enough: 80% of the world's Muslims are said to be Sunnis, and, as noted earlier, my sources for this article are from Sunni works. The Shias constitute 15% percent of the Muslim population, and as established above, their literature subscribes to the same general idea of the Jew." Really, I could hardly believe my eyes when I realised, after five pages of the same old hadith, that was all he was going to say aout the numbers. In any case, he also says, with reference to how mainstream this view is: "None [no scholars] however, had examined the influence of such hadith on the Middle Eastern political theatre, or the use of such hadith in antisemitic preaching, until the 1998 article "Demonizing the Jews" that I co-authored with Kadir Baksh." --Relata refero (disp.) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have other scholars who dispute his view or declare them fringe? If not, then all we can say is that he's the first to analyze this issue, which alone does not make an analysis "non-mainstream". "Non-mainstream" is one scholar saying X and 100 scholars saying Y, which contradicts X. - Merzbow (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If he is the first to analyse the issue, and states that he is isolated on the subject, may I point out that it may be a non-issue? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's always possible to define the scope of a given work by a given scholar so narrowly as to exclude everything else, then declare it unique. If we quite reasonably define the scope as "Islam and Judaism", we see there are lots of scholars writing on this subject, and Khaleel is just writing on one aspect of it. Having said that, maybe we can agree on a compromise of moving this material to Islam and antisemitism, which has a narrower scope and might be a more logical place. - Merzbow (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See also section

Instead of edit-warring, let's start discussing. Just because something is done by Muslims, doesn't imply that it merits inclusion in this article. Ofcourse, if the motivation is Islam, then it may.

For example, if the U.S. has launched space shuttles, doesn't mean we tie it to Christianity. Or if France's favorite food are the croissant, we don't have to make a connection between it and Christianity, though France is a Christian majority country.

Similarly, if Arabs do something, it doesn't mean it must be a result of Islam, or is even tied to the Islamic faith (e.g. Dubai is constructing skyscrapers, is that related to the Islamic faith?). If the motivation for an Arab action is Islam (say Palestinian struggle for Jerusalem), then yes we can make a connection.

In particular, Jewish exodus from Arab lands isn't discussing Islam. So why does it belong?Bless sins (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The countries in question were Muslim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A question

Article states that Isaac is considered 'the father of Hebrews'. Is he a father of Hebrews or Jews, does it need correction? -- 86.57.136.183 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than a temporal issue, Jews are Hebrews and Hebrews are Jews. Technically speaking, the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" derive from Judah, the fifth son of Jacob, himself son of Isaac, and the Hebrews would not be termed "Jews" until sometime after the kingdom of Solomon split into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. The term Hebrews, ostensibly "Ivrim" in Hebrew (the language) is a reference to Abraham, who was the "Ivri" ("other," in that he differed from all prior to him in cherishing monotheism). At the time, the Jews were not called Hebrews but Israelites -- this term is not a reference to Israel the country (rather, the country derives from the same term originally used for the nation) -- derived from the alternative name of Jacob, Israel, given to him by the angel of Esau after wrestling with him near the end of the Book of Genesis. So there is no real mistake here, other than Isaac is not considered any more or a father to the Jews as Abraham or Jacob (they are collectively known as the Three Patriarchs). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence

Both religions prohibit the consumption of pork. Halal restrictions are similar to a subset of the Kashrut dietary laws, so many kosher foods are considered halal; especially in the case of meat, which Islam prescribes must be slaughtered in the name of Allah.

I hid this until it can be substantiated -- while I do not dispute that Islam may permit the consumption of kosher foods, I do contest the assertion that this may apply "especially to meat" for the above stated reason on the grounds that Judaism does not proscribe slaughter "in the name of God." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosher meat is allowed in Islam by the Maliki school of jurisprudence. A lot of American Muslims use this opinion as a dispensation in situations where halal meat is hard to come by (as kosher meat in the US is more freely available). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.16.210 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosher meat is allowed in ALL OF ISLAM. The Qur'an is the Holy Book of Islam and it states so in Surah Al-Maeda (The Table Spread), ayah 5: "This day all good things are made lawful for you. THE FOOD OF THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE SCRIPTURE IS LAWFUL FOR YOU, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter."

I think that proves it. Kosher = The food Allah told the Jews "who have recieved the Scripture" that is lawful. Christianity does not have a set dietary requirement told by Allah/God/YHWH so Muslims (and Jews) cannot eat with them unless they are eating lawful food. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"There is a website for Jews who convert to Islam"

There is a website for everything. A one-sentence shared mention in the NYT from 2001, back when the internet was new and shiny, and a promotion on a website that itself promotes Islam, does not make the website notable in this context, especially in the context of the relationship between religions that collectively have over a billion followers. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed in the Torah

I Really do not know why does the editor change Mohammed to Machmad .. thats not how u pronounce that verse in hebrew nor in any semitic language and the fact that its Moahmmed is the IM .. IM ISNT GIVEN TO RANDOM WORDS .. Jew know that very well .. anyways this page is Called Islam and Judaism because I IS BEFORE J  :) i think the the reader and editor must take some language courses §88.201.1.30 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)§

Deletion of non-neutral statements

They've found the right way, because we all know Islam is the true religion. The stereotypes that many people think about Islam is wrong.

I deleted this line because it is completely non-neutral. RyanNB (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that it is also irrelevant to the topic at hand. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Old Testament

The theory that Muhammad can be found in the Old Testament ist totally made up. The Hebrew word does in no way use a world like "muhammadim". It obviously read: "makhamadim", which is in no way related to the name "Mohammed" or "Muhammad". Stating that there is a connection is not properly scientific and should be deleated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.30.22 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam Keeping the 7 Laws is arguable and un-sourced

There is no source to the very inaccurate statement in the introduction that states Jews believe muslims fall within the realm of those who keep the noahide laws. True Muslims may not be considered idolatrous because of their monotheism, but the laws include a ban on murder and Muhammad famously killed Jews at Banu Qurayza173.54.200.196 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Respond to: "Islam Keeping the 7 Laws is arguable and un-sourced"

In this video it is discussed and verified that the Noahide laws are part of pre-historic islam. This is done by a Rabbi from an orthodox community in Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA2N2Iz5ExM

Furthermore i don't understand the weird analogy to the prophet Muhammed killing the jews. He in fact married two jewish women, and Islam accepts the Jews as people of the book. Therefore the entire argument is very vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musse-kloge (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced info with no apparent reason

IP removed sourced info with no apparent reason. I am adding it back. Please discuss before removing it again.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protection

{{Edit semi-protected}} The reason being that this article has experienced many acts of vandalism. It's just not sustainable for future improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musse-kloge (talk • contribs)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"according to Judaism, Muslims are seen as righteous people of God"

I've moved the following material to the talk page for further discussion:

Jews in turn see Muslims as perfect monotheists and as adherents of the Seven Laws of Noah. Thus according to Judaism, Muslims are seen as righteous people of God.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA2N2Iz5ExM Jewish Rabbi admits Islam is the oldest religion - Youtube] January 31, 2010</ref><ref>http://www.askmusa.org/site/c.ehLKKZPJLuF/b.3350667/k.B74F/AskMusa_QA_Archive/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp</ref>

As can be seen, neither source meets the requirements of WP:RS. Some random guy on a Youtube video is clearly not reliable for anything, and http://www.askmusa.org/ is just some website. Please find more reliable sources for these claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, obviously. As I said when removing this previously, this kind of statement would require stronger sourcing than one (not very notable) guy saying so on youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree slighty in your taking on it. I can get the that the video can be seen as "weak" but when it comes to the website it does have some credibility. The site belongs to The Simon Wiesenthal Center which is "an international Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations. With a constituency of over 400,000 households in the United States, it is accredited as an NGO at international organizations including the United Nations, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe." (from Ask Musa)

But forgive me if i'm wrong, but last time I checked accredited websites were a valid source! So its not just a website! Musse-kloge —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but where do you see that the source for any of this is the Simon Wiesenthal Center? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In the bottom of the page click on the "privacy plicy" tap. Then you will be directed to their policy which discloses their websites origin. :D

Musse-kloge —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

All that shows is that they copied the SWC privacy policy. The site doesn't claim to be affiliated with that institution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read further; it specifically says, that if you want to contact it, then it has to go by an email account registrered to the SWC!!!! Therefore it is affiliated! What's the point of having a privacy policy similair to your home website if you don't own it?! Furthermore why? WHY?! would the webmaster put the only contact information of the website with the apparent contact information of the SWC if it didn't own the site? It's logic: They are affiliated -- end of story. So please lay this to rest. Musse-kloge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.252.194 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, why are you reverting all of the edits, including re-adding the youtube link, when it's clearly not reliable? If you think askmusa is reliable, then you should only editing material relevant to that site. In addition, why would you imagine this website is reliable - please explain in terms of WP:RS guidelines. And finally, an article lede is supposed to summarize the article itself, not introduce random information. Where is this material found in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious they just copied the privacy policy. They don't claim to be affiliated with SWC anywhere that I could see on that site. But feel free to take it to WP:RS/N if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oct 2011 additions

JayJg: Please explain the statement that the following changes were deleted because they are a result of original research: [In the "Muhammad" section, I added specific examples of interactions between Jews and Muhammad, the fast of Yom Kippur, which some say is Ashura, and a modern opinion of Muhammad's prophethood by Rabbi Maller. References are included] None of that was based on orginal research (They were books and articles that can be found in BarnesnNoble). Yahya Emerick? Bukhari? Rabbi Maller? These are non-notables? (Isbani (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

The material you added cited various hadith (e.g. "Sahih Bukhari") - these are ancient, primary sources, and we need citations from reliable secondary sources instead. In addition, you cited "Abdul Wahid Hamid, Companions of the Prophet: Volumes 1 & 2 (Muslim Education & Literacy Services UK)". It's unclear what this is, how reliable it is, and what pages you were citing. Third, you cite http://slashnews.co.uk/news/2009/12/04/5953/Mukhayriq-the-best-of-the-Jews , which is also not a reliable source for this subject as far as I can tell, and in any event doesn't comment specifically on Islamic-Jewish relations. Finally, you cite Rabbi Allen S. Maller, who, as far as I can tell, does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and appears to have a fringe view on this topic. In any event, he is a self-published source, and Wikipedia does not consider those to be reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

neutral point of view

The article is based on hypothetical content by just naming "good faith" assumptions of the relationsship, which is not neutral. The content is in no way comparable with reality, entire cultural differences are missing. The entire Anti-semitism in Islam is ignored. In Islam female genital mutilation and male circumcision as an initial ritual is in existence, in Judaism not. Polygamie, honor killings, arranged marriages, marriages of girls etc. This behaviour is only related to Islam, not to Judaism. Another point is that the history of Judaism and Islam, and due to the age of Judaism, pre-islamic cultures also, is interpretated unlogical, based on an hypothetical euphemism only. The differences of the behaviour i mentioned before was also present in pre-islamic cultures, there is no rational logic and sanity behind the claim that Islam and Judaism share the same values. I strongly ask that the article should be rewritten, cultural differences are missing and a more accurate interpretation of history would be neccessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.118.220 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that you impugning no the neutrality of this article, is a direct result of your own personal bias. This article has nothing to do with polygamy(more precisely polygyny), female circumcision, or honor killings. These topics have been addressed in other Wikipedia articles and have no relevance to this page.

More over, many Muslims would argue that most of what you mention are cultural practices not grounded in Islam. There should be not recognition of such a prejudicial, and unqualified complaint.

Yster76 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Yster76 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrell Rhome's approach to Islamic–Jewish relations

Islam’s Links to Judaism on the The Barnes Review. Perhaps it could be the a great reference for this article. Komitsuki (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism Influence

To say "Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice" does not represent the Islamic view of their own religion. According to Islamic tradition, Prophet Muhammad was illiterate, therefore, he could not have been "influenced" by existing books. Furthermore, Islamic tradition says that both Judaism and Islam are religions of the same God, which explains the similarity between the two religions. Please do not re-add the sentence until you edit it to represent Islamic view as well. Sourced content does not necessarily entail its neutrality. Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice 199.127.252.143 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC) MJC.

Wikipedia goes by what reliable secondary sources say. Please do not remove sentences supported by reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards also state that all point of views must be represented. I kindly ask you that you do NOT remove the POV-Check before the dispute has been ended in the talk page. Thank you for your understanding, I have added the Islamic POV and now I think it's neutral, feel free to dispute. 199.127.252.143 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC) MJC

Wikipedia only states that points of view supported by significant reliable secondary sources should be included. So far you have failed to provide any. Please do not add material that violates WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, are you saying that Qur'an is not a reliable source to learn about Muslims point of view about Judaism :) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC.2012 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing repetitive attempts to describe Judaism influence on Muhammad as the only believed reason behind similarity between Islam and conceal the Islamic POV in this matter (see history). It's important to be neutral here, Muslims do not believe Muhammad was influenced and they believe he was illiterate, concealing this point of view violates Wikipedia:NPOV. It sates clearly that when disputes happens, all point of views must be represented so long as each POV is clearly attribute to those who subscribe to it. If you have reasons to believe that "Muslims" think Muhammad actually learned Judaism or was influenced by it prior to preaching to Islam, please add to this talk page.

MJC.2012 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no source for your claims other than quoting excerpts from Qur'an.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Just to make it clear to you, Muslim's book is the Qur'an (I sincerely hope that you already knew that, since you are touching this article). If there is not a book that says Muslim believe that God is one, but nonetheless it's mentioned in the Qur'an, would you then say it's unfair to claim that Muslims believe God is one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC.2012 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Qur'an excerpts do not state the following: "Muslims attribute this similarity to their belief that both Prophets preached the same religion, therefore to say that Judaism influenced their religion would not make sense to them". In addition, primary sources are inappropriate to support content.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have rewritten the sentence to reflect the Islamic POV more accurately. Also, seeing that there are many attempts here to conceal that POV and allude that Judaism influence on Islam is an established fact (rather than a POV), I have rewritten the sentence before it to clearly state that there IS DISPUTE between Islam and Judaism. The source used to support the claim that "The Judaism influenced Islam" also teaches in the same book that Islam preaches hate of Jews and can hardly be described "reliable" to establish a POV let alone a fact. MJC.2012 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to you inserting alternate views. However these have to be reliably sourced and your original interpretation of Koranic verses does not satisfy this criteria. In addition you have modified reliably sourced content. Please revert.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork is correct here. You're interpreting these quotations from the Quran to support your position. You need to use a secondary source that discusses the Muslim point of view. See WP:PRIMARY. GabrielF (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, wow, there's obviously a dispute here but yet you feel free to remove the POV tag? There are 2 views on that subject and the language of that wiki article should reflect that clearly. Please keep it neutral 67.247.19.21 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank GabrielF for your input. Can you please clarify where the interpretation lies here. This is the Qur'anic Text "And you (O, Muhammad) did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted." and this was my sentence "Islam, however, strongly rejects the notion other religions have influenced Muhammad as taught by Qur'an". Also, would a reliable scholarly interpretation of the Qur'an (say, Ibn Kathir) consider a reliable secondary source? I kindly ask you to be neutral in your answer to my questions. MJC.2012 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation comes into play when you say that one specific quote from a holy book defines how a religion views a particular issue. In some cases that may be true, but in other cases it isn't. (For instance, I've seen some Christian commenters take quotes from the Qu'ran that are particularly violent and then say "this shows that Islam is not a religion of peace" - clearly that's a spurious conclusion.) In Islam, as in other religions, people's beliefs come from holy books and through traditions of scholarship and interpretation. So, when we want to claim that an entire religion "rejects" something, we have to consider more than just a holy book, we have to look at how it has been interpreted and understood. The "gold standard" here would be a modern scholastic source that looks at how different schools of thought within Islam have dealt with this question. However, you could probably use a source like Ibn Kathir as a very prominent example. The issue though is, when you consider a 14th century source, it would be obvious to ask whether that source really reflects 21st century thinking. GabrielF (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a religion view on another can be most reliably backed using that religion's book. However, I understand your point that you cannot interpret it to claim that the followers of that religion view the other religion in the same way. So to say that "Islam" views "Judaism" on certain way can be supported using the Qur'an. If you notice, I revised my sentence and I'm no longer claiming that "Muslims" view Judaism in that way. Also, remember that this article is about "Islam" and "Judaism" relation rather than "Muslims and Jewish relations". Regardless, I think we have a dispute here and I kindly ask you to leave the POV tag MJC.2012 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC

A debate whether we should use narrative voice to claim that Judaism has influenced Islam? There was a sentence before (now, removed) written as this "Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice." and used this source to back the claim: Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. pp. 110-126. As per Islamic tradition, prophet Muhammad could not have been influenced by existing books and this is one of the highly debated issues in comparative religion. I believe a more neutral language that presents both POVs should be used. I proposed the following changes [Diff]. If you have a secondary source for the Islamic POV please add. Thanks. MJC.2012 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism, and the Judaic heresy that is Christianity. It's not a POV: it is the consensus of modern scholarship. One should object to the source used. There is a massive amount of scholarship on the textual history, origins, and Judaic/Christian cultural frames from which Islam arose. I don't think we should use books dealing with antisemitism to write about the history of religions.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A fair source to replace it ('strongly influenced' is improper in any case) would be something like this.

'The whole problem of Jewish, or for that mattter(sic) of Christian or other extraneous influences on Islam is of course a problem for Jewish and other non-Muslim scholars, for whom such a question simply cannot arise. . .to suggest borrowing or influence is therefore, from a Muslim point of view, a blasphemous absurdity.' Bernard Lewis, Jews of Islam,Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002 p.69.

The problem is, if the religious position excludes what modern scholarship knows, do we place both on the same level as POV (the religious point of view/the modern scholarly point of view)? I don't think any encyclopedia does this. Certainly, the doctrinal positions within varieties of Christianity about the New Testament's composition, or within fundamentalist Judaism about the 'historicity' of the Tanakh, are not allowed to ride roughshod over what modern scholarship says. I.e. Our articles on the Bible must allow that it is not a divine narrative, that much of it is story-telling for moral purposes created by brilliant writers, just as the New Testament's book's cannot be described as transcriptions of divine revelation, as Christians often think they are. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nishidani for your comment and even more for the excerpt you quoted from Lewis's book. I'm trying to re-write that sentence to present the Islamic POV in addition to the modern scholarly opinion in a neutral language. I'm very satisfied with way you analyzed the subject matter and I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me write a neutral statement similar to your commentary above to be included in the article. Many thanks again MJC.2012 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

All this reminded me of a passage in Reuven Firestone's An Introduction to Islam for Jews, Jewish Publication Society 2008 p.101 where he gives the Judaic version that the Torah was revealed to Moses at Sinai, the Christian version of the New Testament as God's word, and the Islamic version that the Qur'an was God's word revealed to Muhammad via Gabriel. I'm a great admirer of his work, and that is the narrative voice required of an interfaith dialogue. It is a marvel of neutrality in confessional terms. A modern encyclopedia has a different voice and different criteria for neutrality. So everything has to be attributed (In the Tanakh, according to Christian tradition, the Qur'an relates. .etc).

As to the specific point, once one goes to the specialist literature, it gets pretty complex, whether we deal with modern scholarship on textual origins or Muslim scholarship on, for example, the Isra'iliyat. Hence one has to be careful. I hope editors of different confessions in here appreciate that, to some ears, Telushkin's formulation, though okay in the round, unfortunately sounds just a tad patronizing. That is why I think we should search for an RS that is non-confessional, and strictly academic.

'Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice.'

This is a general truth, but like all dicta or generalizations, requires nuancing. If I wrote: Christianity was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice, there would be substantial truth in this, but it would ignore profound differences, such as the overpowering influence of Greek thought and Roman law, and thus risk misleading the reader. The issue of influence is rarely satisfied by X (abstraction) influenced Y (abstraction). Moses Hadas once argued strongly that Plato's Laws had a decisive impact on the formation of rabbinical thought. Were that so, one could, with this kind of statement, equally argue Plato influenced Islam, in so far as Judaism in its mid-rabbinical form, was indebted to Plato. etc.

First, the sentence prioritizes Judaism as the direct major influence. The scholarly literature makes the Arabian world of Muhammad's day an arena of competing faiths, and sects, derivative of Judaism and Christianity. To take just three well-known examples - ignoring the general milieu with its many Jewish and Christian communities in which Muhammad lived - the case of the Prophet's relative Waraqa ibn Nawfal (the wiki article is not too good) in Islamic tradition learnt Hebrew to read the Tanakh, but was a ḥanif deeply versed in both Jewish and Christian scriptures.* `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas , one of Muhammad's cousins, was neither Christian nor Jewish but because of his knowledge of their traditions was remembered as the 'rabbi of the Arabs' (hibr al-'arab). The Yemeni Jewish convert, on the other hand Ka'ab al-Akhbar, clearly brought rabbinical traditions into the inchoate hermeneutics of the Qu'ran as well. Three examples of people close to Muhammad and early Islam's generative milieu, from three different backgrounds.

For all we know, the source of much of the 'Judaism' Telushkin prioritizes may have come down as often as not titrated through Aramaic/Syriac Christian scriptural traditions transmitted by communities there, as much as from the many Jewish communities in his ambiance. There is of course a third possibility entertained by scholars. That as the Tanakh is, among other things, an enormous, if stringently edited, compendium of ancient pre-Judaic (stricto sensu) Middle Eastern cultural lore and myth, it is far from improbable that the traditions which the Qur'an shares with the Tanakh, and which here are called 'Judaic', resemble each other because in the Arabian peninsula much of that ancient pre-Judaic lore was conserved differently.

So, casting about for a source that puts the issue more neutrally, I came across this:-

'In contemporary non-Muslim scholarship, the relatiuonship and possible influence of Jewish and Christian sources upon the Qur'an and Muslim exegesis, and vice versa, remain an issue of some contention. Most older studies claim that all parallels between the Qur'an and the Bible prove the reliance of Islam upon Judaism anbd Christianity. More recently, scholars have taken into account the possibility of a shared common source for the Bible and the Qur'an, and demonstrated the Muslim influence upon Judaism and Chrtistianity.'Brannon Wheeler, 'Isra'il,' in Oliver Leaman (ed.) The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2006 pp.322-323.

In the great tradition of Jewish empathy with a kindred faith we see in, for example, Ignác Goldziher, Maxime Rodinson classic account, Mohammed (1962) Penguin 1971 is rather more sensitive to the undertones of how we formulate the issue of influence, and interprets Christian and Jewish influences in a way that makes Arabic pride and honour, esp. since Jews and Christians of the time often despised Arabs, more creative in moulding and synthesizing these traditions with their own. Hope this is useful.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was reminded of Plato's Laws (Νόμοι) here because because when the Prophet spoke to Waraqa ibn Nawfal, the latter answered: 'This is the nāmūs revealed to Moses.' Nāmūs is a loan-word from Greek νόμος, 'Law', which was borrowed by Greek-speaking Jews to translate Torah, and then ended up on the lips of Mohammad's cousin in distant Arabia.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Islam is a syncretic tradition of Judaism, Christianity, Arab Paganism, and a few others - that Judaism was a strong, nay, seminal influence on the formation of Islam is not a point of view, it is the overarching consensus of modern scholarship (additional sources aren't hard to find; search Google Books or Scholar for "Islam and Judaism", and treat sources written by Muslims with a grain of salt, for the reason that the Renaissance/Reformation ability to critically analyze their own religion was never gained; thus, even most "scholarly" Islamic books treat things such as "the Koran is Allah's unbegotten [sic], eternal Word" as fact) and thus should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. That Judaism was a seminal influence on the development of Islam is no different than saying Christianity was heavily influenced by Judaism. (Albeit the directions the influence were taken and adapted in each religion are diametrically opposed, as Islam never had greats like Maimonides or Anselm or Aquinas, but instead had Ghazali and Taymiyya.) Many further distinctions can and should be made - it can not be presented as "Judaism warmed over and corrupted", which would be like unto representing Christianity as a heretical Jewish sect (much as one of the above respondents did), and completely incorrect as far as it goes for both religions - as regards to the specific development of Ashari orthodoxy, jurisprudence, theology, strong Pagan and tribalistic holdovers (religious razzias = jihad; hajj, etc.), just as they can be with Christianity, the different influences of Greek thought (i.e. how the Arabs who read Aristotle treated his works as Scripture or as "Philosophy", the discipline, and worked on removing internal contradictions as if it was scriptural exegesis instead of using his methods to proceed further, etc.), as long as these are sourced as well. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced fantasy in the lead relocated here for discussion

From the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai until the present, the history of Judaism has spanned approximately 3,400 years. For the first 2,000 years of this history, Islam was not in existence, and as a result, there is no discussion of Islam in the founding texts of Judaism.

The giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai is not an historical event, but a story told in the Torah. Moses received the written tablets of the Law, in this tradition, a half a millenium before the invention of a distinctive Hebrew scriptg. Wiki does not allow a gesture of an hypothetical divinity giving a gift to a mythistorical character in a religious tradition to be presented as a fact, as this does here.

The passage asserts Judaism began in 1,400 BCE. Judaism draws on traditions that extend back into prehistory. Judaism as the term is understood is a system of belief and practice that did not exist in 1,400 BCE. As practiced, it achieved the kind of canonical form we call Judaism a thousand years after this mythistorical date. The Torah narratives achieved their final form a thousand years after this mythistorical date. Some respect for 'encyclopedic' criteria please. No editor of experience could see this and not smile at the way a piece of nursury tittletattle was being passed off as historical.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Jayjg's revert of my edits (a one way tendency. It is not my habit of automatically reverting anything I see Jayjg adding to a page that comes under my purview), here and and here.

The WP:OR construction (it has no basis in RS and is pure fantasy) in the lead was removed, rather than attaching a cn tag, because it can't be substantiated in RS anyhow. If you think my reasoning wrong on this, you should address my objection here, where I noted the rational for removing that edit. To simply restore the defective material, without deigning to add an RS which would justify the bizarre claim, is to beg the question.

GabrielF will recall a long note I wrote explaining my approach to an edit concerning Palestinian people, JC as a Palestinian, like many rabbis, as most sources allow. I bookmarked his page, in case he answered there. He didn't, but his page remained bookmarked, and today, for the first time, seeing a notification there, I looked and followed it, and gave my view, which is that which AnkhMorePork, yourself, and GabrielF share, regarding this page. I then looked at this page, and saw the astonishingly silly sentence in the lead. I made two edits. The only other place where I turned up and you happened to be there is on the pogrom page. I was directed to comment there by [User:Oncenawhile], at the talk page of 1517 Safed pogrom. Please note that on this last page, I edited before you turned up, and by the faulty logic you are using here, you are the one guilty of WP:Hound. Which you aren't, of course. But don't throw this silly suspicion my way every other day. Thank you.

Secondly, your edit summary that Maimonides has nothing to do with Islamic-Jewish relations is only evidence ytou have not troubled to read beyond the lead. Please justify your edits on the talk page, especially when they cancel excellent RS, instead of using the edit-summary format, which often cite the wrong policy or cite policy incorrectly or irrelevantly. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to listen to Nishidani's anti-Semitic nonsense. Can't someone just ban him already? It is a well-known fact that Judaism is over three thousand years old. I wonder if Nishidani argues that Muhammad never existed? I wouldn't be surprised if he was just another "Palestinian" invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnaider (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"2. Jews in the Quran."

Please add this to give neutrality and balance to the currently totally one sided biased section "2. Jews in the Quran." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Judaism#Jews_in_the_Qur.27an

Quran 98:6 Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures. [1]

Quran 5:65 And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared Allah , We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to Gardens of Pleasure. [2]

Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. [3]

Quran 5:60 Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those (Jews) whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way." [4]

Quran 7:166 So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be apes, despised." [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.44.195 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

2.97.44.195's has a valid point. The section about Jews in Qu'ran appears one sided, and should probably be expanded a little to include these or other verses in the interests of fairer representation. The section is writ to cast a more positive light on the Qu'ran's views on Jews but such an interpretation is not universally accepted. Jargon777 Leave a message 18:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamic–Jewish relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic–Jewish relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EI":

• From Banu Nadir: Veccia Vaglieri, L. "Khaybar", Encyclopaedia of Islam
• From Najis: Weinsinck, A.J. "Nadjis". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• From Jizya: Cahen, Cl.; İnalcık, Halil; Hardy, P. "Ḏj̲izya." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2008. Brill Online. 29 April 2008
• From Islam and other religions: W. Heffening, in Encyclopedia of Islam
• From Apostasy in Islam: W. Heffening, in Encyclopedia of Islam

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Facts

      It would help to add that the largest population of Jews in the Middle Ages lived in Muslim ruled Cordoba. Some figures should be in order.  Also add that Muslim rule in Cordoba helped incubate the Jewish Golden Age as the Golden Age of Cairo and the learning there made its way to the Iberian peninsula with all the new knowledge from the muslim thinkers and philosophers and scientists..Mamoides expounded upon Al Faribi and Avicennas work to bring rational thought into Judaism..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.77.58 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic–Jewish relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060510031538/http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.10.26/news.imam.html to http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.10.26/news.imam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Tag re Historical Interaction section

Planning to revise the Middle Ages section, under Historical interaction (2.1). This section is poorly written and maintains a POV bias in the middle ages section. It also doesn't use relevant secondary sources. I plan to incorporate the Cohen-Stillman debate into this source as a way to properly explore jewish and islamic relations during this time. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Matt458 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This section is quite poorly written (repetitive and poorly structured), but more importantly it contains a strong POV bias - primarily in the "Middle Ages" subsection. There is a similar debate open in the linked "main article". My observations are as follows (each of which can be easily sourced via WP:RS:

• It does not make reference to Islamic Iraq's place as the world center of Judaism
• It does not state that Jews held senior government positions in the main Islamic countries throughout the period
• It does not state that European-style antisemitism was unknown in the Islamic countries until it was imported in the 19th century initially by the French (see Damascus affair)
• The sentences "The notable examples of massacre of Jews include the killing or forcible conversion of them by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century.[38][39]....Most conversions were voluntary and happened for various reasons. However, there were some forced conversions in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia.[41]" are confused in tone - the first part is clear POV whilst the second appears more balanced. Neither however provide adequate context to explain the conversions (available in the articles about the incidents), with which it would imply a different story
• The sentence "Notable examples of the cases where the choice of residence was taken away from them includes confining Jews to walled quarters (mellahs) in Morocco beginning from the 15th century and especially since the early 19th century.[40]" suggests European-style ghettoisation. The Mellah article itself suggests a very different story, as does the source added at Talk:Mellah.
• The "Conversion of Muslims to Judaism" is overly simplistic, with incorrect sentences such as "Judaism does not proselytize". The article Proselytism#Judaism does a much more accurate job.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Most of Iraq's history as a center of Judaism predates Islam.
• Jews did occasionally hold senior government positions in Islamic countries. You can add a few examples if you like.
• European-style antimsemitism was indeed imported in the 19th century. Before that, they had their own version of what would today would be called antisemitism.
• What different story do you think is implied by other articles regarding forced conversions?
• What very different story do you think the Mellah article suggests?
• Judaism has not proselytized since Hellenistic times. Except for maybe some individuals, few and far between. The sentence is not overly simplistic. The examples given in this article do not suggest proselytizing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition to notes from "Nice Guy," I think it should be added that in the Arabian

Peninsula, Jews were enjoying a "golden age" with the Himyarites (pagan empire), when along came Muhammad and killed the Madina Jews, including women and some of the kids. (The Quran and Hadiths from this era also are the source of many bigotries toward Jews by Muslims, to this day (as often cited by Muslim preachers themselves, in videotaped proof...) but of course you can't cite the Quran wholesale because it's a case of "history got written by the victors"; many THIRD PARTY authors -- Byzantines who were neutral (or at least equally bigoted against both Muslims and Jews) -- had also commented on this Muhammadan era in Arabian history.) 97.98.86.66 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic–Jewish relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029195949/http://www.kulanu.org/timbuktu/timbuktu.html to http://www.kulanu.org/timbuktu/timbuktu.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/silkenwine/islam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Islamic–Jewish relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911211619/http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-story/hud.htm to http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-story/hud.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827001100/http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-story/yusuf1.htm to http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-story/yusuf1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113114650/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%2F03%2F03%2Fstory_3-3-2007_pg4_15 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%2F03%2F03%2Fstory_3-3-2007_pg4_15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912101430/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/0b3ab8d2a7c0273d8525694b00726d1b to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/0b3ab8d2a7c0273d8525694b00726d1b
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603050907/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914045315/http://ffeu.org/twinning to http://ffeu.org/twinning

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic–Jewish relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614212433/http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/19530 to http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/19530
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishdayton.org/page.aspx?id=235745

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic–Jewish relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205174423/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

The historical section is a disaster. See above what Oncenawhile had written in 2012. We are in 2017, and NOTHING has been done.

There must be a section devoted to the comparison between the situation of Jews in Islamic countries and Christian countries in the Middle Age. All historians, such as Mark Cohen (Under Crescent and Cross, 1994), Raymond Scheindlin (specialist of An-Andalus), Bernard Lewis etc. agree to say that there is a great difference and that the situation was much better in Islamic countries.

Jews in islamic countries during the Middle Age could be viziers (is there one prime minister in the Christian Middle age ?), ambassadors etc see for instance Samuel ibn Nagrela, Hasdaï ibn Shaprut, Yechiel ben Isaac ibn Hassan, Abu al-Fadl Hasdaï etc.

About the Almohade's period, and the violence against Jews, it must be contextualized: all people suffered, Muslims, Christians and Jews were victimes of Almohades.

About the modern period, we can read : "The State of Israel was proclaimed on 14 May 1948, one day before the expiry of the British Mandate of Palestine.[56] Not long after, five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War". Was this attack motivated by religious feelings ? It is not sure. And what Israël had done that can explain this attack ? The article doesn't say any thing about this subject, why ?.

We can read also that 1000 000 million Jews were expelled from Arab countries. We must know how many Palestinians were killed or expelled. The article says nothing about this.

There are in Israel minorities of Muslims who are not Palestinians, and who are discriminated : Doms, and Circassians, because they are not Jews ; they have nothing to do with Arab-Israeli conflict.

About conversions, they are not contextualized. Of course, there were collective conversions to Judaism before Islam, in the Roman Empire, and the Arabic Peninsula (see the kingdom of Himyar). The question is : until what period ? Did it continue after the birth of islam, and if not, why did it stop ?--86.249.68.241 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Cut to the chase, get to the point direct, and add following to the lead.

The idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula, "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it. Abraham, Moses, Hebrew prophets, and Jesus were all prophets of Islam, but according to Muslim tradition their message and the texts of the Torah and the Gospels were corrupted by Jews and Christians. 202.156.182.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

"Traditionally Jews living in peaceful Jewish lands were attacked and had their land stolen , (along with Christians) and were called dhimmis yet were allowed to practice their religion and to administer their internal affairs but subject to certain conditions.[41] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free, adult non-Muslim males) to the Muslim government but were exempted from paying the zakat (a tax imposed on free, adult Muslim males)." It's a system designed to eliminate over time.

Please change the last line which states that the Zakat is a tax imposed on free adult Muslim males, to "a tax imposed on all Muslims with a surplus of wealth." All Muslims are required to pay Zakat it is a pillar of faith. The only valid exemption are those who do not have wealth to give. Please refer to this fatwa http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/6689.html Pitts.nordera (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You need a reliable source, not a personal web site. Also, the source needs to make it clear that what you state was the way the zakat was applied in the middle ages, which may or may not be the way it is interpreted now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Under section 1.2, a space is omitted after a period, shown here:

...Meccan and Medinan chapters, some of which are long.Although there are differences in the Quranic and Biblical accounts... Joseph Stocke (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

In the page it claims that ha-Satan is seen by Jews as an opponent of God, when this is not true. Most Jews hold ha-Satan as a servant of God. This line should be taken out as it is highly misleading. Rafoage (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 05:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matt458, Antonioabarca5th.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

wikilink update

as I don't have 500 edits yet and I create a dab page for Ritva, could someone please adjust the link Ritva to Ritva? Thanks! Hi.ro (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC

{{Ping|Luizpuodzius)} Querendo traduzir é só dar um toque. ,187.20.115.60 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs more sources for 3.1 'Holy scripture'

Especially for the last paragraph, which only contains one citation at the end. The first sentence, describing the Islamic view on the Torah, needs a source, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Biblocal" should be "Biblical"

Is there an easy mechanism for reporting errors such as the above? It also seems that Sura 5:20 is quoted twice, from different translations, and once with the Sura name and once with the Sura number. 2.247.242.212 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Source?????

What is the source for this material please add or I will edit out any information I believe is personally biased 194.193.146.243 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There are over 80 citations in this article and about a dozen other references. If you object to anything in particular, discuss it here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

In the section on Muslim conversions to Judaism, change the link for "Ovadyah" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah_the_Proselyte Meerkat77 (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The wiki page you linked is a Catholic to Judaism convert Lightoil (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

other prophets

According to judiasm Joseph was a prophet. the source given is the Jewish Encyclopedia which quotes the bible. but the bible does not mention him being one. the other two mentioned are alaborated in artical if this is also true i think its worthy to also be elaberated/ Chazir (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Source #1 is a bad source

One of the authors of source #1 is Dennis Prager, who is a conservative pundit. Pretty sure this isn't a neutral point of view. Clamless (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be wary of Prager in general. And of that book. But the two cited statements are, the two religions share similar values, guidelines, and principles and there are many shared aspects between Judaism and Islam; Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice. I can detect no POV in there at all. We don't need to send people to Prager's book for this, certainly; do you have another source for these basic facts we can use? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)