Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Requested move 25 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism → Islam and Judeophobia – The term antisemitism has its origins in German eugenics (a thoroughly out-of-favor science), and is grammatically inaccurate because Judaism is a religion. Also, semite (שם) has an older history and is clearly established as more inclusive. Also, religious arguments inside Judaism for classification as a race should be acknowledged as romantic. Scientus (talk
) 16:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN removing the fallowing: or Islam and Jew-hatred or Islam and anti-Jewish sentiment. The confusion caused by this term is so great that a template was created specifically for it: Template:Warning_antisemitism_Arabs.Scientus (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed it because you're changing the proposal after significant discussion has taken place. Your editing is bordering on being disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 14:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(We should respect this by not pigeonholing Judaism as a religion except in cases such as this where the distinction is critical.)Scientus (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There is endless and reoccurring dissatisfaction with the term antisemitism in the antisemitism article [1] [2] [3] [4].Scientus (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The 1913 Websters dictionary specified Arabs as part of the Semitic race. [5] Scientus (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But this discussion is not about "who is a Semite?" --NeilN talk to me 12:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The Nazi's were against the semitic race, which includes Arabs.Scientus (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment, the current title is not
Khestwol (talk
) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You may be confused about the meaning of the word antisemitism, which has nothing to do with antipathy toward Semites in general. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That specific meaning is per the
Khestwol (talk
) 03:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As I suspected, you don't understand what the word "antisemitism" means. It has only one meaning, and that meaning is "Jew-hatred". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if it only means hatred of the descendants of Shem (which I agree it does; but this romantically also includes Christians and Muslims), to those not familiar with the term it is confusing, imprecise, and prejudiced (as heredity is not a choice). You are also completely contradicted by the existence of Religious antisemitism. Scientus (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You can believe what you'd like about descendants of Shem, but it doesn't change the only meaning of the word antisemitism, which is Jew-hatred. We don't worry about people who are confused but can't be bothered to use the dictionary. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 06:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
...where they won't find Judeophobia anyways... --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a reason this article should be singled out, and that is because there are more Muslim
WP:PRECISE.Scientus (talk
) 03:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The article title is already precise and doesn't resort to using an obscure term. Please look up antisemitism in any decent dictionary. [6], [7], [8] --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Only if you are familiar with the history. The word itsself, gramatically, contradicts that definition.Scientus (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No, only if you are familiar with the common, almost universally used meaning of the term. BTW, Judeophobia doesn't even appear in Webster, Cambridge, or Oxford. --NeilN talk to me 04:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry on the contrary as far as a description of the subject is concerned surely "Judeophobia" has a higher rate of recognisability than antisemitism. GregKaye 08:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit that I had never heard the term "Judeophobia" before today, or not to my recollection. Yes, when I read the term I understand what it refers to, but anti-Semitism is a much more commonly used (and therefore, I would argue, recognized) term. The latter is used by mainstream media such as the Guardian and BBC, the Anti-Defamation League, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and appears to be preferred by scholars by a wide margin. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the Judeophobia neologism is being stuffed into the main Antisemitism article. --NeilN talk to me 07:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The origin of the term antisemitism has nothing to do with "eugenics" (a concept that did not even exist at the time the term was coined). Even if it had, it would be irrelevant. Numerous commonly used terms derive from obsolete science (the word "phlegmatic" does not change its meaning just because we now know it has nothing to do with how much phlegm you have in your body). The notion that "'Judeophobia' has a higher rate of recognisability than antisemitism" exists only in Greg's fantasy world. How often are people accused of being "judeophobic"? Almost never. Paul B (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
People are often accused of being islamophobic, and the jump in meaning is quite straight-forward.Scientus (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and they are accused of being "homophobic" (a coinage that makes no etymological sense whatever, but we still use it). And if you don't like the USA, you are accused of being 'anti-American' not Americaphobic. And of course the term only applies to the USA, not to other countries in the Americas, despite the meaning of 'America' in a geographical sense. But if you don't like the English you are "Anglophobic". Language is inconsistent. That's just the way it is. It's not our job to replace Anti-Americanism with Americaphobia. Paul B (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
anti-Jewish sentiment would be fine with me, but it doesn't have the history that Judeophobic has. And American can also mean people of North and South America; Brazil is even a federation composed of (26) states within the Americas; the non-ambiguous term is yankee.Scientus (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeez. You haven't understood a word I said have you? I give up. Paul B (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yankees. Is that really what you're suggesting? Cordless Larry (talk
) 10:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The use of American is related to the Monroe Doctrine. Scientus (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. It has to do with the fact that the "title" of the country is not a name in a normal sense, but a description. BTW, off topic, but Yankees is slang, which was commonly applied to the northern states alone. It shows the pitfalls of trying to determine ourselves what 'correct' usage is. Paul B (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite being a red herring I think that to some extent it is fair for Paul B to indicate that "The origin of the term antisemitism has nothing to do with "eugenics"". However the prejudicial perceptions of Semitic races in Europe are very readily associated with the events of the holocaust.
None of this changes the fact that the commonly used descriptions of "Jewish people" and "Jewish culture" commonly begin "Jewish ..." or "Judeo...".
None of this changes the fact that "anti-Semitism" or "antisemitism" (however people chose to edit the lettering) is a misnomer. GregKaye 13:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't. It's just a word. As has been pointed out ad nauseam many words have non-ideal or even totally daffy etymologies. The issue is common usage, which is what determines meaning. It is not yours or anyone else's idea of what the right word should be. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually antiseminism is historically related to eugenics. The neologism is from Moritz Steinschneider to make Judenhass more scientific and to support Aryan superiority. On the Origin of Species was popular at the time. Remember that the eugenicists never understood
Mendelian genetics. See Ernest_Renan#Views_on_race. Scientus (talk
) 13:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The League of Antisemites was founded in 1879. The word eugenics was created in 1883. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Renan claimed that the Semitic mind was limited by dogmatism and lacked a cosmopolitan conception of civilisation.[24]". That is eugenics.Scientus (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I have actually read the works of Renan. You should visit his home in Treguier. It's irrelevant to the point. And no, it isn't eugenics. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, not eugenics.Scientus (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose."Judeophobia" is even more of a misnomer than "antisemitism". Now, if "Islam and Jew-hatred" were being proposed for the title, I might support it. But the use of "phobia" is a deliberate attempt to make bigotry sounds like a mental disease or a psychic disorder: "an hereditary form of demonopathy" in Pinsker's words. I don't think we have to promote one rarely-used misnomer over a widely used but generally understood misnomer. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Jpgordon, you raise a genuinely interesting argument here. According to the article on Islamophobia, this version of terminology was introduced in a deliberate attempt to condemn the "negative emotions such as fear, hatred, and dread directed at Islam or Muslims". I don't see how one case of such use could have been in a deliberate attempt to do good yet another instance was in "a deliberate attempt to make bigotry sounds like a mental disease or a psychic disorder" GregKaye 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In both cases, the attempt is to demonize bigots by assigning a psychological disorder to them. Tacking "phobia" on seems to be accepted English now, but we should make sure individual usages are of sufficently currency and usage before we adopt them, especially in article titles. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jpgordon again thank-you. I personally think that bigots may be rightly demonized with whatever terminology is used: In the same paragraph Pinsker mentions both, "Having analyzed Judeophobia as an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an inherited aberration of the human mind, ..."

I am unclear as to the difference that you see in the relative usages. Having so far got through most of the pamphlet, I have compiled :

relevant quotes related to Judeophobia and anti-Semitism as appearing within:"Auto-Emancipation" by Leon Pinsker (1882)

That hoary problem, subsumed under the Jewish question, today, as ever in the past, provokes discussion. Like the squaring of the circle it remains unsolved, but unlike it, continues to be the ever-burning question of the day. That is because the problem is not one of mere theoretical interest: it renews and revives in every-day life and presses ever more urgently for solution.

This is the kernel of the problem, as we see it: the Jews comprise a distinctive element among the nations under which they dwell, and as such can neither assimilate nor be readily digested by any nation.

...Only when this basis is established, when the equality of Jews with other nations becomes a fact, can the Jewish problem be considered solved.

...

With the loss of their country, the Jewish people lost their independence,... The world saw in this people the uncanny form of one of the dead walking among the living. The Ghostlike apparition of a living corpse, of a people without unity or organization, without land or other bonds of unity, no longer alive, and yet walking among the living -- this spectral form without precedence in history, unlike anything that preceded or followed it, could but strangely affect the imagination of the nations. And if the fear of ghosts is something inborn, and has a certain justification in the psychic life of mankind, why be surprised at the effect produced by this dead but still living nation

A fear of the Jewish ghost has passed down the generations and the centuries. First a breeder of prejudice, later in conjunction with other forces we are about to discuss, it culminated in Judeophobia.

Judeophobia, together with other symbols, superstitions and idiosyncrasies, has acquired legitimacy phobia among all the peoples of the earth with whom the Jews had intercourse. Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind, and that this ghost is not disembodied like other ghosts but partakes of flesh and blood, must endure pain inflicted by the fearful mob who imagines itself endangered.

Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.

It is this fear of ghosts, the mother of Judeophobia, that has evoked this abstract, I might say Platonic hatred, thanks to which the whole Jewish nation is wont to be held responsible for the real or supposed misdeeds of its individual members, and to be libeled in so many ways, to be buffeted about so shamefully.

Friend and foe alike have tried to explain or to justify this hatred of the Jews by bringing all sorts of charges against them. ...

In this way have Judaism and Anti-Semitism passed for centuries through history as inseparable companions. Like the Jewish people, the real wandering Jew, Anti-Semitism, too, seems as if it would never die. He must be blind indeed who will assert that the Jews are not the chosen people, the people chosen for universal hatred. No matter how much the nations are at variance in their relations with one another, however diverse their instincts and aims, they join hands in their hatred of the Jews; on this one matter all are agreed.

Having analyzed Judeophobia as an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important conclusion that we must give' up contending against these hostile impulses as we must against every other inherited predisposition...

I hope to work through further but would appreciate your thoughts. GregKaye 17:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner
:Online 06:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner
:Online 04:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on

Islam and antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on

Islam and antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on

Islam and antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Islam and antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Stop hand.svg We know that the Semites include Arabs."

So why continue to peddle this incorrect usage? Anti-Jewishness is a more appropriate term, which is both accurate and sensitive to the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.160.174 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Antisemitism in Islam per consensus.  samee  converse  22:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  22:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Christianity and antisemitism. buidhe
(formerly Catrìona) 14:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. The existence of Islamic antisemitism is not denied (except by hardcore deniers) - and does not imply that all Muslims are antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Note - I am fine with Antisemitism in Islam as well. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title should be in sync with the content of the article. The article isn't solely about Islamic antisemitism. The article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism, which includes Islamic antisemitism, of course, but also other issues, such as the question of whether Muslim rulers' treatment of Jews was antisemitism. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and I would also support a move to Antisemitism in Islam as well if scope concerns exist. feminist (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is the proper scope of the article. As a self-proclaimed successor faith to Judaism, just like Christianity, Islamic thought has been full of polemic, including rather violent polemic, against those semi-barbarians who did not "update" their beliefs to the superior latest "upgrade". Again like the Christian case, Islamic history is also full of theologically justified persecutions of Jews, as Maimonides could tell you. This concerns Islam (like Christianity) as a realized system -- not specifically the scripture, and certainly Muslims as a group. --Calthinus (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Move to Antisemitism in Islam. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Imo this is more of a thorny case as moving to that could imply a bit of an anti-Muslim POV, depending on interpretation, as it could be read to imply that antisemitism is an integral part of Islam. --Calthinus (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Antisemitism in Islam seems better from that pov, no? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: not to me at least, i.e. "Islamic antisemitism" is antisemitism in Islamic societies or using Islamic justification; "Antisemitism in Islam" would imply antisemitism is a part of Islam.--Calthinus (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Shiekh Iyhab Bayan

There are thousands of "sheikhs" throughout the Middle East and we should require some degree of notability before the opinion of one of them deserves mention. Such as being notable enough for reliable mentions on multiple occasions or, if you like, notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As far as I can tell "Iyhab Bayan" is entirely unknown except for one nefarious sermon that MEMRI (itself a nefarious organization) allegedly obtained. It is not enough to pass

WP:ATTACK. Zerotalk
23:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Original research

None of the sources here talks about anti-semitism.

WP:OR
says This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

During Muhammad's life, Jews lived on the Arabian Peninsula, especially in and around Medina. Muhammad is known to have had a Jewish wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, who subsequently converted to Islam.[1] Safiyya, who was previously the wife of Kenana ibn al-Rabi,[2] was selected by Muhammad as his bride after the Battle of Khaybar.[3]

What is original research here? Everything is sourced. This is an introduction to the subject of anti-Semitism. I fail to see the problem. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR, This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk
) 14:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The section these sentences are in is called "Muhammad and Jews". I think the fact that he had a Jewish wife, which he took by force after fighting the Jews of Khaybar, is directly related to that section. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't really need to quote a basic policy like WP:OR to a veteran editor. Let alone that there is no need for the stripes and colors in your post. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat, pp.120-123.
  2. ^ Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Guillame (1955), pp. 145–146
  3. ^ Sahih Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 522

Fake list of pogroms

I am removing the list of 19th-century pogroms on the grounds that it is fake. For copious proof, see Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world#Fake_list_of_pogroms. Since the version on this page also includes some Turkish locations from Bernard Lewis' list of blood libels, I checked some of the relevant articles in Encyclopedia Judaica in case pogroms were mentioned. Istanbul (vol 10, p781): no mention of 1870, blood libel in 1874 no pogrom mentioned. Edirne (vol 6, p148): blood libel spread by Armenians, no mention of a pogrom. Izmir (vol 10, p827): six blood libels brought by Greeks 1864–1901, no mention of pogroms. Note that even if some of the blood libels listed by Lewis were accompanied by pogroms, for this article it is necessary they be attributed to Muslims. All sources including Lewis are unanimous that the great majority of blood libels were brought by Christians. Zerotalk 04:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

See my comment there, that we could keep the information that there were blood libels, in those cases where that is applicable. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rotarians and freemasons are also hated because they think that because they like casino goings, they must be Jews

... and therefore are hated this heavily thereof. Jew hate. Also, GIDAs hate Merkel not because she is a christian believer, but because she is a Jew. This is though a strange reason why a christian believer should be hated is because the christian believer in question is a Jew. --82.207.238.34 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing lead

The lead reads "Antisemitism in Islam refers to scriptural and theological teachings in Islam against Jews and Judaism, and the treatment and persecution of Jews in the Muslim world."

Should we change this to "Antisemitism in Islam refers to theological teachings among Muslims against Jews and Judaism, and the treatment and persecution of Jews in the Muslim world." 73.73.127.102 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That lead would border on racism so I suggest we leave it as it is. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Heading "The Quran on Jews in its historical setting" is misleading

Section deals A LOT with historical events not dealt with in the Koran, at least definitely not in ways a chronicle would; and I had patience and read through much of it plus one detailed source, but I'm yet to find a single reference to any actual sura.

Background is NOT the same as scripture. I'm hugely thankful for the background, but where is the section/material on the Koran & Jews? Missing in action, purpose betrayed, heading misleading, user unhappy. Arminden (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I did finally find a sub-sub-sub-sub-paragraph, lacking a bold heading because of the 5 = signs, and wich still proved unhelpful and worse than vague. Arminden (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

missing context on the relationship between Abrahamic faiths

The article leaps straight into the hostility as if Islam and Judaism arose independently on different planets, but from some perspectives they are different branches of the same religion. I'm knowledgeable enough on this topic to see there's huge gaps of some important things missing, but I feel under-qualified to fill those gaps by myself. I'll try to find some things to add to add as "see also" but the introduction really needs a couple of sentences of background about…

  • How Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are related to each other (historically and theologically)
  • The somewhat privileged position of both Jews, Christians, and some other religions have as "
    people of the book
    " within moderate and conservative Islam (as opposed to radical fundamentalist Islam, which moderates often regard as not really Islam, e.g. "so-called Islamic State").

The balance in the body of the article could also be improved by some coverage of Islamic objections to antisemitism.
Irtapil (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Dubious statement (factually & logically)

"The Quran does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restoration of its original message – thus, no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise"
  • "restoration of its original message" implies that the Hebrew Bible, as the specific set of texts known by this name, had a different "original message" than the one preached around 600 CE. Twice doubtful:
    • Don't think Islam regards the HB as an authentic reproduction of the divine "holy book", or divine revelation to the people.
    • Don't think Islam ever saw the Hebrew Bible (the book known by this name) as possibly carrying the correct message, which Jews first received through its very text and recognised, and only later denaturated.
  • "thus, no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise."

Fallacy: would only be correct if either the Hebrew Bible were to be seen by Muslims as at least one form of the authentic divine "holy revelation" (and then, logically, be a valid replacement of the Koran), or if "Judaism" had adopted the Koran/Islam; which it didn't, nor does Islam claim that it had. On the contrary, "Judaism" cum its scripture is seen as straying from the divine message, indeed given by Allah to Musa, but denaturated since - in written (Hebrew Bible), not just but also in interpretation.

Am I wrong in any of it? Arminden (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The first part "The Quran does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restoration of its original message" sounds right.
I agree the next bit sounds wrong, but I also don't understand your rebuttal.
Would it work to just delete the next bit? Does it have a citation?
Irtapil (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The first question I would ask in my ignorance is what the Quran actually says about the HB. Or is this a confusion between "Quran" and "Islam"? Zerotalk 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Zero0000 I'm just a curious atheist, but I've been quite interested in Islam since about 1999. This is my general impression as an outsider, from talking to Muslim colleagues, and listening to various interviews and seminars, etc.
My attempt to actually read The Quran didn't get past the translator's introduction, plus a few haphazard pages here and there. So I am not sure what itself says about the Bible.
But technically that wasn't The Quran, because The Quran refers only to the Arabic version. Translations into other languages are all labelled things like "the meaning of The Quran" if they come from Islamic publishers (some older translations done by Christians are "the Koran, translated by…").
Muslims see it as very important to preserve the original version exactly, and not use a translation-of-a-translation, like the
King James Bible
. They see the older prophecies (Christianity and Judaism etc.) as corrupted and garbled by being translated through multiple languages, and various other degradation over time.
From their point of view, The Quran is the divinitive version of the story, the correct error-free version. But it's the same story, the same one God, etc. as Christians and Jews share.
I'm not sure quite where that idea is written down. It might be in the Quran itself. Or it could be in the Hadith, a separate collection of texts that were the words of the pophet محمد as distinct from the Quran, which is the word of God himself. Or if this concept is just a sort of "self evident truth" that's not actually in print anywhere specific.
The Quran has mony of the same people are stories as the Bible. They are recognisable even to somebody not very familiar with either book (i.e. me).
Irtapil (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Arminden: (My own religious background is that I'm an "atheist who sometimes does Christmas lunch". Despite the Christmas lunch thing, out of the religions being discussed here I am most familiar with Islam, and I know amost nothing about Judaism.) This isn't my own view of it, but the personal option of a random atheist is irrelevant here, so this is just what most Muslims believe, to the best of my understanding.
As I was also saying below, Muslims regard the Quran as a more accurate, less degraded, error-free version of the same message from the same God. Subsequently preserved exactly only in Arabic.
As far as I can tell, Muslims think early phropets were real, and those holy texts were correct when revealed, but that in the subsequent hundreds or thousands of years, humans have damaged the original message. The only really big difference is Muslims think Jesus was a prophet, but not a messiah or son of god.
I really don't understand what you are saying though, @Arminden? I understand why Muslims think the newer book is better, but you seem to be saying the older version is better? And I can't work out why?
I had never heard the term "Hebrew Bible" until about a month ago. As far as I understood it, the Bible has an older half (
the Torah), and a post-Jesus bit (the new testament
) that is unique to Christianity. The Torah is in Hebrew, and the bible is in hundreds of modern languages (plus a few old ones like Latin, Slavonic, etc.). I thought the original texts that both books of the bible came from were in a huge array of languages that didn't fully match any version. Bits were in Hebrew or Greek, but also other languages. So bits of the Greek and Hebrew bible are original, but none of them have the full set? None of the prior books have the magic of the - all Arabic and only ever Arabic - Quran?
If the story of the
King James Bible
but I think they'd still prefer their shiny new Quran, I don't see how old Hebrew would trump new Arabic?
Irtapil (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Irtapil (1): Yes, I mainly mean the part:
"no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise".
If it said "no clash of interpretations between what Islam presumes the original Mosaic/Sinaitic Judaism must have been", then the logical fallacy is gone and you'd only have to educate me about what Islam thinks Moses received from God at Sinai. But saying that Judaism and Islam should be in sync, ignores the very real differences of text and dogma between the two, which makes a full harmonisation impossible; only conversion would do. Fred Donner (see for instance here) is convinced that up until c. 700 CE, Islam was not codified, not really a religion, and a much more inclusive concept of monotheistic brotherhood allowing for all "righteous" Jews and Christians to be regarded as perfectly acceptable mu'minin, "Believers", as much as any of the fresh followers of Muhammad. Ever since though, a clear distinction was introduced, and the actual Judaism (and the more so: the actual Christianity, with its concept of Trinity), were discarded as aberrations. That means: YES, an inreconcilable clash of essence, let alone of interpretation, between practiced Judaism and Islam.


I don't know when and where the concept of denaturation of the original true revelations in Judaism and Christianity took shape, who was blamed if anyone beyond "the Jews" and "the Christians", if the actual texts of the Hebr. Bible (HB) and the Chr. Bible (CB) themselves are seen as contaminated (I believe that's the case) or just their exegeses, and if all main branches of Islam take an identical stand on these topics. Also, in the most accommodating of cases (both HB & CB are/were in their original content divine revelations), are they seen as time- or culture-appropriate, and less complete versions of the divine revelation, which only came down in full to and through Muhammad? Or as equally complete? To push it even further: is there a unique way in which God reveals his truth, an unchangeable "copyrighted" Holy Book in God's mind? Because then the HB and CB are really waaay off, as their actual text hardly at all resembles that of the Koran. Big questions.

@Zero: as far as I know, the Koran doesn't say anything about the HB or CB. It deals with many of the same events, but never with the texts. Over time, Islam develops layer after layer of padding, putting more and more distance between it and previous monotheistic revelations, but that's later on. I don't know anything beyond that. Ceck out Donner and other specialists.

@Irtapil (2): to Muslims, every word of the Koran is 1:1 God's revelation (Allah -> Jibril -> Muhammad). Moses (Mousa) and Jesus (Issa) received their own revelations, but they got garbled in time. Jews & Christians stand accused of misrepresenting & misinterpreting God's original words to Moses and Jesus. How, when, by whom precisely - no idea, nor if there's any Muslim consensus on that. Probably not, but the outcome is rejected.

Hebrew Bible, OT, NT: first, there's no 100% universal canonical form of either (see Biblical canon). Even the Koran didn't always look exactly the same, as proven by the few C7 fragments found. The HB has the Masoretic form, which is very detailed, but late (C10), and not binding in every minute detail to all followers of Rabbinic Judaism, let alone to Karaites or even Samaritans. The Christian OT is based on the Septuagint (LXX), an ancient (C3 BCE) Greek translation of what Alexandrian Jewish sages considered to be relevant (canonical?) from their perspective; and "based on" isn't an evasive term, as there is no one complete ancient manuscript of the LXX accepted by all. But that is the base of the OT, and it's in Greek only. As the HB is almost only in Hebrew, with a little bit of Arameic in the later books, the NT is 100% in Greek, with some discussion about some parts maybe originating in Hebrew texts, based on Semitic turns of phrase which aren't Greek in character, even if they came down to us in Greek. So no, the Bible is not in many languages: you only need Hebrew, a little Arameic, and Greek to read both the HB & CB "in original". As to the NT, there are quite substantial differences in content (long & short versions, varying wording, non-uniform sequence of the books), based on a missing standard text. There are several old manuscripts, which contain these variations, and different denominations and/or translators rely on different MSS.

I would argue that there is no special "magic" to the Koran beyond the incantational "magic" of any liturgical recitation, be it of the Hebrew Bible, pre-Vatican II traditional Catholic Latin scripture, or indeed of any other Christian, various Persian or non-monotheistic religious ritual. The Koran is a much more poetic scripture than the historical parts of the HB and the biographical passages of the NT, which are more focussed on a narrative. And that's probably the main reason for you (and me) not getting ahead to well with reading the Koran, even more so in translation: as I'm telling myself, "it's poetry, stupid!". To use your terms, "old Hebrew" (Biblical Hebrew) does or does not "trump new Arabic" (new? For a C6-7 idiom of the Arabic Peninsula?!) as much or as little as any language trumps another, especially in their most polished literary products. Hebrew has a huge quality of conciseness, among others, and Judaism's concern with ethics is so old that part of its scripture is a condensed form of very profound thought, while Arabic culture of the pre-Muslim period excelled in one branch of arts only, and that's poetry, with all its intricacies of topic, language, and poetic art. So no, I wouldn't support your claim. But thanks for your food for thought! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. patsw (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas

Kashmiri, I wanted to bring to your attention that cancelling edits just to dewikify one word is not considered a good practice. While I value your contributions to Wikipedia, I kindly ask you to refrain from any behaviour that could be perceived as harassment. If such behaviour persists, I may find it necessary to reach out to the administrators for assistance.

Additionally, I've noticed that some of my edits have been cancelled without due consideration. Therefore, I urge you to reconsider cancelling edits without careful review.

Furthermore, it's concerning that these actions began after you saw my message condemning the

sexual crimes of Hamas, including rape. Let's endeavour to engage in constructive discourse and respect each other's perspectives. Aisha8787 (talk
) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LINKQUOTE
. Your claim that it "is not considered good practice" is made up. Re. the second edit, I self-reverted it immediately, so I have no idea what you are jumping at.
Newly registered accounts that come directly to edit controversial topics attract scrutiny of established editors. That's how it works on Wikipedia – for a reason. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Kashmīrī, thank you for your response. I understand the standard practice you mentioned. However, I want to clarify that my concern wasn't to threaten, but to express feeling harassed due to the abrupt cancellation of edits. The fact that my account is "new," as you say, is not a reason to thoughtlessly cancel contributions. I hope we can foster a positive editing environment and collaborate effectively. Bye-bye. Aisha8787 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism_in_Islam/Archive_9&oldid=1222700124"