Talk:Judaism

Hell#Judaism

Could someone have a look at this? It's unreferenced and has the taint of OR. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But the content seems to be true to the Jewish view of this phenomenon. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaism's texts; Debresser

Mr. Debresser, you reverted back a belief as it was a fact! Do all Abrahamic faiths believe so, too? It should either say "Jews believe/claim" or only the fact that they have influenced traditions. Others say that the text comes from the same source, not from each-other. The second source is also a POV! AdvertAdam ^talk 06:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made this edit, however, Debresser reverted it saying that the previous wording is more correct. I suggest that the POV can be changed to a belief rather than a fact, or just remove "texture" and keep "traditions and values". AdvertAdam ^talk 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Judaism's texts did influence other Abrahamic faiths. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what half of the population claim; however, Muslims and Bahai faith believe that the Qur'an was from the same source, but din't copy Judaism's texture. The Quran just explains the full history, having different content most of the time. They don't even except the Old Testament as a whole AdvertAdam ^talk 05:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Torah and Psalms were written well over 1,000 years before the Qur'an. There were a number of Jewish tribes in Arabia, and Arabs of the time were well aware of the texts. The New Testament was also written many centuries before the Qur'an. The Qur'an mentions all of them (taurat, zabur, indjil). Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but that doesn't mean that the Quran copied texts from the two earlier testaments. Muslims belief that it's a divinity from the same God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. Likewise, when an Encyclopedia writes about a biography in year 1900 and another writes about the same thing in year 2000, it doesn't mean that the second took the content from the first! AdvertAdam ^talk 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't say the Qur'an "copied texts from the two earlier testaments". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions" traditions and values are true; however, text are not agreed on with all parties! AdvertAdam ^talk 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Judaism's texts didn't influence Christianity? What are the reliable sources you have for your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the text only influences Christianity, considering the Old Testament a part of the Bible. But Christianity is not the only Abrahamic faith, you still have Islam and Bahai Faith... AdvertAdam ^talk 07:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On what reliable sources do you base your views? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no reliable source on this article that includes, "Judaism's texts strongly influenced Islam/Qur'an"--considered to be almost half of the Abrahamic Faith's population. Anyways, this article says that Muslims believe that the Qur'an was sent as a divinity from God (includes the history of Sons of Israel, not copying it from Judaism texts). Likewise, I have tons of scholarly sources that say Jewish Scriptures were copied from Zoroastrians, Christian scriptures are from Judaism, and Muslim scriptures are from Judaism and Christianity. Commonsense considers this a personal attack, which forbids it from being mentioned on this article. Therefore, I assume that this line is considered the same way: phrasing a claim of some Abrahamic Religion texts being taken from Judaism as a fact, instead. Confirming, I think a claim should be mentioned AS a claim, not a fact. I'm ONLY against mentioning "text", NOT "traditions and values". AdvertAdam ^talk 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about; religious beliefs, whether of 10 people or a billion, are not relevant to what reliable sources say on a subject, and mentioning the influences on Islam can in no way be considered a "personal attack"; please review WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I only gave you that source because you said, what sources do you have that the Quran isn't influenced by Judaism text. Anyways, my point here is, Islam is not influenced by Judaism text; It's only influenced by Judaism history and traditions. Therefore, I think it's wrong to put that statement as a fact. It can be "Jews believe that Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions," OR "Judaism's traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions," OR "Judaism's history, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions,". If not, then do you agree of adding a section saying that Judaism text was influenced by Zoroastrian text, from scholarly sources. It's the same thing AdvertAdam ^talk 02:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tit for tat game where one trades mentions of Judaism's influence on Islam with Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism. I've added two reliable sources outlining the influence of Jewish texts on Islam; now please provide reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gsh, work and finals started to stress me at the same time :).

(1) I didn't mean as a trade; I was just talking about the fact that sometimes different sources give opposite opinions, so we can't put a source that says the Jewish Bible is influenced by Zoroastrian Text here, like this. The hardcover of this crazy book is continually sold out, and it ranked the best 150 selling books on Amazon, in 2002. I don't believe any of the crap that is in it, and I already proved it wrong in my blog with 300 viewers now. But I can't deny that he's still considered a reliable source, too.

(2) Regarding the Qur'an, this statement was also explained as the opposite, "Second, the interpretation of the Koran is sometimes likened to the study of the Jewish and Christian Bibles.".

(3) Another source also explains the additional historical facts in the Qur'an, which were not mentioned in the Bible. You can check this out, especially the second paragraph stating, "while there are several incompatibilities between the biblical..." (p.157). Also, p.155 states the Quranic history.

Therefore, yes you have reliable sources (which only talks about the similar headlines, as it was copied from the oldest source), but there is other sources that say the opposite; without counting the Malaysian, Indonesian, and Arabic studies, as it's hard to connect to their libraries. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the influence of Judaism's texts on Islam. Maurice Bucaille was a medical doctor who wrote apologetics about the Qur'an; he is not a reliable source on the topic. If you have any reliable secondary sources on the topic, please provide them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, my [1] source clearly states that it's incorrect to say the Quran was interpreted from the Jewish Bible (text), which the book was authored by non-Muslims, Craig A. Evans and William H. Brackney. As I said, Islamic sources are hard to find here in the West; but I can contact some old friends to connect me to other libraries. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The source you've brought is actually James H. Charlesworth, and he says no such thing. He says Muslims do not study the Qur'an in a text critical way. The fact that devout Muslims believe that the Qur'an was recited to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel is not in question, nor is it relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get one thing straight? Near as I can figure, the Jewish texts substantially antedate any Muslim texts. Mohammed decidely refers to "people of the Book" which fairly strongly implies that he was familiar with the existence of Jewish and Christian texts. He refers also to characters and events found in the Jewish and Christian texts, which rather implies he was familiar with such texts. Does this article state or imply that sections of Jewish or Christian texts were plagiarized in the Qu'ran? Nope. The article uses the term "influenced." Frankly, if a prophet of a new religion refers to people, events and beliefs found in an older religion, it is quite reasonable to use the word "influenced." Collect (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Influenced can also mean that some of the Quran is taken from Jewish text (also referred to in the citations), which is not a mutual agreed point by all to put it as a fact. While there's other sources and believes that deny so, then it's considered a belief. What you're saying here is that he took that text, changed a couple things, and added some details by himself then. In other words, if you say both are influenced by God, it make sense; but if both claim to be a revelation, then you can't override one on another AdvertAdam ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Influenced" does not mean what you seem to think it means. What is clear is that Mohammed was familiar with Judaism and Christianity, and specifically refers to both in the Qu'ran. Wikipedia does not have an "official religion" at all. Collect (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, regarding your edit summary, I think I know what the word's meanings are and I have a dictionary, too :). It can mean what you said AND it can also mean what I'm referring too, based on the two current sources in the article and the dictionary's list of meanings. Wikipedia also doesn't put one side of a story as a fact. Of course it's unappropriate to add a section in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam pages that their texts are all influenced by Zoroastrian myths, based on my (1) reference above. He's a very known scholar & historian and have many supporters too, but it's considered unproper unproven theology--just like source [9] on this article, talking like he lived with Muhammad. It also said what I mean by influence, "Mohammad used biblic narratives to illustrate faith and actions in the spirit of the Koran"

Most important, based on your explanation of influence, then we can also write that the idol worshipers influenced Christianity and Islam, just because their holy books spoke about them too AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather then expounding on your personal beliefs here, please bring reliable secondary sources that support what you say. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just explaining the differences in the sources, not belief. What is a clear belief/theology is the first source to this section [9]; where Busse said that Muhammad used narratives from the Bible, even though many narratives have different details between the two. The second source [10], by Zeitlin, clearly states "Possible Influences on Muhammad's Inspiration".

Therefore, a belief or claim can't be used as a fact in this article, especially when there's other beliefs/claims that say the opposite.

Yes, James H. Charlesworth was saying that the radical Muslims should critically study and realize that the Quran doesn't allow suicide bombing. Moreover, the followed paragraph insists that the three texts (Jewish and Chrishtian Bibles, and Quran) are a divinity from God. Then, following in the next paragraph that it's incorrect to say that one is based on the study of another. AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, this is meant as a constructive and supportive suggstion: your English is pretty good, but if it is not your native language, ask a friend who is a native English speaker to go over our grammar and sentence construction before posting, it will enable you to convey your ideas more clearly. I have been following this thread and would have given up some time ago, except it just keeps going. As far as I can tell the main question is whether the word "impact" is more appropriate than "influence." The words are very close in meaning but I prefer influence for two reasons. First, it is a little more vague, elaving room for many different possible ways Judaism could have influenced Islam, and to many different degrees. Impact is a stronger word, and in some cases I do not think that the influence of Judaism on Islam was great enough to justify using the strong word "impact." Also, "impact" has violent connotations which personally I find distasteful. According to my dictionary the principal meanings of impact are:

1. The striking of one body against another; collision. See Synonyms at collision.

2. The force or impetus transmitted by a collision.

3. The effect or impression of one thing on another: still gauging the impact of automation on the lives of factory workers.

4. The power of making a strong, immediate impression:

Today, thanks to people like Samuel Huntington, the idea of a "collision" of different cultures is popular among some political circles. But the fact is, during the formative period of Islam Judaism did not "collide" with it. The first Muslims - the Prophet and his first followers - grew up in contact with Jews and with some knowledge of Judaism. There was no violent collision; Jews did not strike the Prophet or Muslims. At most the historical record might justify saying that the monotheism of the Jews had an impact on the first Muslims. There is clearly one element of Judaism that did make "a strong, immediate impression," perhaps making the Prophet receptive to God's words. Yes, this is just my opinion, I have no source and am not sugesting we include this. I am just trying to imagine what cases might justify such a strong word as "impact" and I can come up with only one. Unless we have reliable sources that use the word "impact," I think we are much better off with the softer, milder "influence." Influence can be indirect and it can take more forms (for example, early Muslims could respond to something in Judaism, but in a unique and creative way - this would be evidence of Judaism's influence, but it leaves room for much more agency on the part of Muslims).

So now we have been going on for 13 days on a question of semantics, and in 13 days as far as I can tell AdvertAdam has converted no one to her position. I think it is clear that there is a consensus for Debresser's revert. 13 days is plenty of time for discussion on such a minor matter. Let's move on, and consider other possible improvements to the article. For example, under Jewish texts, I agree that Jewish legal literature should be given the most weight. But I think midrash and piyyutim are at least as important as Jewish philosophy and deserve perhaps a small section comparable to the length given to philosophy. I may be wrong about this but I do not think Judaism makes the distinction between "diction" and "non-fiction" that the modern West does. neverthelsss, in my experience Jewish values are communicated as much through what might be called "fictions" - poetry and aggadot - that the article ought to call this to readers (e.g. non-Jewish readers) attention and explain why. Is there any chance we can talk about this for a week or two, rather than "impact" versus "impression?" I am not trying to ram this down people's throats, I am just asking for the thoughtful discussion I know editors here are capable of. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and highly agree on most points, as I also have more important things to follow, than a word. However, you haven't got the point of the whole argument. No one, ever, can deny that Judaism had and has an influence on Islam: history, prophets--faith-wise,...etc. My point here is that Judaism's text only has influence on Christianity, not Islam. My oppose is regarding that the narratives in the Quran was based on the Hebrew Bible, while this intention is clear in the two citations. Mentioning the Judaism text in the Quran doesn't mean it was influenced by it; Likewise, mentioning the idol worshipers doesn't mean Islam is influenced by them too.

Grammatical errors from writing in a hurry is definitely not a proof that English ain't my native language. I was born and raised in Central California, where I haven't been around any other languages, even Spanish. My Arabic studies are just within the past 4 years, relating to my recent travels and Academic research on Abrahamic Religions. Thanks for your comment, and I also want to close this soonest. I personally love and honor Judaism and also study the Old Testament frequently. AdvertAdam ^talk 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with Hindusim page being odlest religion then

Hinduism page says Hinduism is the oldest....on this page it says Judaism is the oldest.....71.106.83.19 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This page says that Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions. Since Hinduism accepts the existence of many gods, it fairly obviously doesn't qualify as monotheistic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For one reason or the other, this issue comes up every now and again... Debresser (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Main Photo

Shouldn't the main photo contain a Talmud and Shulchan Aruch being that these books make up the core day of learning for Rabbis and yeshiva students (both the current and classical leaders of Judaism)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis and yeshiva students make up a very small minority of all practitioners of Judaism. The main photo contains a variety of ritual objects pertinent to a broad variety of those who practice Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Most orthodox Jews do not want to be associated with conservative and reformed Jews with regards to theology. Shouldn't there be a link going to the Orthodox Judaism page in the very beginning that people can easily identify without going to the bottom of the page?