Talk:People of the Book

Definition of 'People of The Book'

It is quite interesting to note the focus on 'contradictions' in scripture (here and elsewhere). I would like to point out that per the definition of 'people of The Book' in the page under discussion (which does indeed include those who call themselves "Muslims"), the material following the heading 'The Quran' is itself a gross contradiction. (Remember: "Muslims" are also the people of The Book.)

To have any hope of understanding The Qur'an, one must always remember who it is addressed to: 2:1 In the name of ALLAH The Gracious The Merciful. 2:2 Alif Lam Mim 2:3 This is a perfect Book There is no doubt in it It is a Guidance for the Righteous 2:4 Who believe in the unseen and observe prayer and spend out of what WE have provided for them 2:5 And who believe in that which has been Revealed to thee (i.e. The Qur'an) and that which was Revealed before thee (i.e. Torah, Pslams, Gospels) And they have firm faith in the hereafter 2:6 It is they who follow the Guidance from their LORD and it is they who shall prosper

So we note that the Book is addressed to 'believers'. And we further reason that not all those who have inherited (a portion of) The Book -- i.e. Jews, Christians, and (yes) Muslims -- are 'believers' in the strict sense defined above. Thus, any claim that the Qur'an enjoins "Muslims" to do x, y, or z (good or bad) to 'people of The Book' is simply a misunderstanding of the Scripture. - Kabir

Article claims:

All others are considered idolators?, who are to be either murdered or converted.

Excuse me? Where does the Koran say that idolators are to be "murdered"?

I've removed the statement for now, as I suspect many Muslims would dispute it. --Stephen Gilbert

Yeppers. Especially given that many PotB were neither murdered nor killed for many years while in Islamic states. The whole point of dhimmi is that unlike other religions, PotB are tolerated. Martin

Tolerated, as long as they remain dhimmis. But if a Jew or Christian demands to be treated as an equal, the all bets are off. RK

RK, you've added a long para here on the status of dhimmi - but we have an article on dhimmi, so surely we should rely on that to provide the details? I think we should only summarise the key points of dhimmi here.

Second point - do the later parts of the Qu'ran actively rescind the earlier parts? Or do they merely contradict? Martin

The answer depends on whether you ask a religious Muslim, or a historian. Religious Muslims (like religious Jews and Christians) will deny that any contradictions exist in their scripture at all! They hold that all contradictions are only "apparent", and they produce complicated apologetics to prove that contradictory passages don't contradict each other at all. As a Jew, I am well familiar with this phenomenon, having seen this from the inside: Orthodox Jews hold that there are no contradictions at all in the Torah, and that all contradictions are only "apparent". During my reading on Christianity a few years ago I found precisely the same phenomenon in much of the American Protestant Christian community. (Liberal religious Jews, Muslims and Christians usually reject this approach, and admit that contradictions exist.) Historians usually hold that when contradictions exist, they are evidence of historical development. Sometimes the original author changes his mind in his later years; sometimes a contradiction is the result of a passage that was added many years after the death of the author. This is much easier for Wikipedians to talk about when it comes to the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. Many of us here are familiar with higher biblical criticism on these books. For Islam, however, this is a tougher issue since so few people are familiar with higher Koranic criticism (in the academic sense of the word) and text study. RK

I was told by a Muslim missionary that later parts of the Qur'an can "abrogate" earlier parts. He said it was written over a 22-year period, and in an early stage, God allowed the Arabs to use alcholic beverages, and in a later stage, he thought they had advanced to the point where they could give up such use, and then told them to do so. Michael Hardy 22:05 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

User User:Usedbook writes:

Although it is commonly held that this group includes the Jews, Christians and Muslims, it is equally evident that Muslims are the only extant group to legitimately hold this title. According to Islam, all nations were given a Messenger and guidance from Allah. Eventually, due to the abandonment and adherence to strict monotheism, the followers of Moses earned God's Anger (by supposedly worshipping a calf and Ezra)and the followers of Jesus Christ went astray (by supposedly worshipping Jesus Christ). It is popularly held by the vast majority of Muslims that the Holy Tawrah (revelation given to Moses) and the Holy Injeel (revelation given to Jesus Christ) are no longer extant and that the present day Bible and Torah share little or no resemblance to the divine copy. According to Islam, Muhammad was sent during a time of spiritual darkness and once the Qur'an was finally established, all past revelations became abrogated, making the Last Testament not only for the Arab nation but for all mankind until the Jay of Judgement.

More unorthodox Muslim groups consider the Karaites, Samaritans, Zoroastrians and even Mandaeans to be People of the Book.

This is inaccurate and needs further explanation. The People of the Book as in the Quran refers to "groups with previous revelations, prior to Islam" even it has been corrupted (from the Muslim Point of view). Therefore, this applies to various Christians, Jews, Samaritans (they have the Torah, and are considered a group of Jews), Karaites (a splinter group of Jews as well), Mandeans (called Sabeans in the Quran), Zoroastrians (because of Zarathushtra being a prophet of God, although dualism crept into the faith later, the Zurvanism heresy, and was dominant in 7th century) -- Khalid B.

There has never been a doubt as to the Jewishness of Karaites - we are simply Jews who do not accept the Oral Torah. When the temple last stood, the majority of Jews did not accept the Talmud and were called עם הארץ. --Josiah 04:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New intro

Izak, do you have any cites for "People of the Book" being used outside of an Islamic religious context? It's scarcely common English usage. - Mustafaa 11:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outside Islamic context, abrahamic religion is used. Ausir 17:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For Jews TODAY "Am HaSefer" in Hebrew is the People of the Book

Here are a some random selections proving that the phrase "Am Hasefer" as well as (and meaning "People of the Book") is currently used and applied in Jewish circles. Here are some random examples:

• The People of the Book: Jews and Universal Literacy by Erica Brown [1]]
• See entry under: Goren, N., Garfinkel, L. et al. editors. Yahadut Lita [Lithuanian Jewry], vol. 1. Tel Aviv: Am Hasefer, 1959. (H) [2]
• Course description: Am Hasefer Program by:Besdin, Abraham R. Dept. of Adult Education Yeshiva University [3]
• See entry under: Torah and Other Sacred Texts: The Hebrew bible is basic to Jewish life. The Jewish people are sometimes known as "The People of the Book" ( Am HaSefer). [4]
• See entry for Grade 5 Basic Judaism Description: "...This course is intended to teach core Jewish concepts to students. It exposes students to classic Jewish texts, terms...Topics include...Am HaSefer..." [5]
• See entry for: Pursuing Justice In Our Cities, Part III: Working in Coalitions: "Minna Morse wraps up her three-part series on Jewish urban justice groups with this article on coalition building. Part II, Teaching the "People of the Book"..." [6]

Cool. I've added a mention of that usage to the first paragraph; if someone writes an article (say Am haSefer or People of the Book (Judaism)), we could make a disambig if necessary. - Mustafaa 08:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you. Makes sense. IZAK 08:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe the Hebrew is עם האספר. That's just using my little Hebrew phrasebook though, best wait for confirmation from someone qualified. Also from someone utterly unqualified, I hope no one minds me not liking the transliteration. From the Hebrew alphabet article I think ‘am ha-sefer" (the def. art. 'ha' behaves like 'al' in Arabic I believe) is not only more æsthetic, but simple as well, as far as transliteration conventions go. Khirad 10:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Added the Hebrew writing, minus the aleph (א), which doesn't make sense here. However, one thing I'd like more info on: when did the phrase "People of the Book" become common usage among Jews? It's very common now, and it seems that the term has been decontextualized from its original usage in Islam and made into a celebration of Jewish bookishness and learning. My feeling is that this is a fairly recent development...does anyone know of pre-20th century usages of "People of the Book" in a Jewish context? I bet this usage is very new. Babajobu 23:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sikhs

Are Sikhs "People of the Book"? Are they considered "stranded" Muslims?

Well, they are certainly 'innovators', or heretics in the Islamic view I would imagine. Khirad^talk 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Two questions on intro

Hello, I just saw this page, and there are two things I cannot understand about this introduction:

• Why is the Zabur not listed among the divine scriptures?
• It was my understanding that there was some dispute as to who the "Sabians" are (or were). The Sabians article seems to bear this out. But here it is treated as fact that they are the Mandaeans. Why is that?

— Nowhither 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert War

Mike18xx -

I personally thought that User:Yuber's version was perfectly fine (except for a grammar issues). But I attempted to make it more NPOV by putting the treatment of the People of the Book below the "Similarties in belief" section which, in my opinion, is of greater importance. I also changed the positive link in the "External links" section from an Islamic site to an inter-faith site. I even put the item about dhimmis in its own sub-section. If anything, it's now more POV towards the negative side (although I don't think it really is).

About calling Yuber a vandal, I'd like you to take note that the version prior to this wrangling between you and him is the one he is advocating (see comparison). It simply does not make sense to label him as a vandal as he is simply advocating what originally was on the page. And why are you, Mike18xx, complaining that Yuber's not making comments on the talk page? You haven't either. Look over this version. If you don't like it, that's fine. But please follow your own rule and state your complaints on this talk page. As Yuber's version is the "original" and my version is a slight modification of the original, it should be you who has to justify the major changes being made. joturner 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I conclude he's a vandal for what I consider very sound reasons leading to inevitable deductions....but let's not talk about him, and stick to the specifics of the issue at hand:

1. It is "backwards" to approach any controversal subject by first listing the defense of the perpetrators -- can you imagine how jarring it would be for you to read an account of, say, the Antebellum South, which began by listing "choice" quotes regarding lenient recommendations plantation owners gave to their overseers concerning the treatment of their subjects? It's utterly bizarre.

2. It is grossly POV as well as inaccurate to portrary the perpetrators as "giving rights" and "protection" when they are doing precisely the contrary. The whole turgid mess is an appalling whitewash, despite a few throw-a-bone references in the links, and everyone involved in whatever horrific "consensus" (if any) Hell-spawned it ought to be very ashamed of themselves.--Mike18xx 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical use of People of the Book. The rules expressed in the Qur'an may or may not be followed, but that is what the Qur'an is said. And even though, in your opinion, non-Muslims are not given rights and protection today, there have been times, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age when Muslims have been more adherent to that idea. I fail to see the lack of neutral point of view; the article gives enough information on both interpretations of roles of People of the Book. Maybe you can cite some more examples of point-of-view? And please refrain from disparaging other users' opinions by calling them "Hell-spawned"; you're not helping your case at all and you're violating Wikipedia:Civility. joturner 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in the section "Treatment of the People of the Book": "Rulings surrounding treatment of People of the Book vary with the Qur'an." doesn't make much sense to me; there is just one Qur'an, as far as I know. Furthermore, the section on treatment must be based on Islamic law, not on Qur'an. So, Mike's version is clearly preferable. In addition, the article does not cite reliable sources; I have placed an appropriate tag therefore.--Pecher 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were to believe that you could not identify a simple typo (it should have said within not with), that is not a reason to revert the page. What doesn't make sense to me is why a section on treatment of People of the Book shouldn't reference the Qur'an. You say that section should be based on Islamic law... Well, the Qur'an is, after all, the highest source of Islamic law. The version you are advocating is not NPOV within the section in question because it puts too much emphasis on the negative aspect of treatment of People of the Book, while mentioning the positive only as an afterthought. joturner 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)