Talk:Islamic–Jewish relations

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.

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)

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)

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!.