Talk:Islamic–Jewish relations

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 cannopt 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 Bernard'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)

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)