Jump to content

Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NAVIGATIONAL HELP FOR Category:Jews and Judaism, Category:Jews, Category:Judaism, category tree:
Parent: Category:Jews and Judaism
(by: country, place, region, topic)
[Main container category]
Child: Category:Jews
(by: country, place;
also: biographies, lists, categories of individuals)
[Main container subcategory]		Child: Category:Judaism
(by: country, place;
also: denominations, religious topics, religious texts,
synagogues, yeshivas, schools, rabbis)
[Main container subcategory]		Child: Category:Jewish history
(by: country, region, era;
also: all secular topics)
[Main container subcategory]


Arabia vs. Saudi Arabia

[edit]

The creators of this category should realize that there was no such things as "Saudi Arabia" until 1932, simply because the "Saudi" is ruling family, not a particular region. Thus, this category should only include topics that are post-1932. On the other hand this category can be moved to "Jewish history in the Arabian peninsula".Bless sins (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, since Saudi Arabia is a country, like all other countries, it contains in it the histories of all peoples and groups within the confines of its borders no matter how long into the past that goes. Thus, for example, in the History of the United States, even though it only starts as a country in 1776, it also contains in it the history of Native Americans that were in the confines of its present-day borders going back thousands of years, and so on and so forth for each and every country no matter when it was set up in its modern form, it includes the histories of all peoples, groups, kingdoms etc that were in its borders from the beginning of history/time. IZAK (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main discussion

[edit]

Reposted here from User talk:IZAK#Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history:

hi IZAK - there might be a problem with this cat and the other cat concerning Jews/Judaism in SA. Saudi Arabia was only called such when the Saud family took control in the early 20th century. before that it was simply Arabia, or Hejaz/Najd/etc. so it might be appropriate to rename to Category:Jewish Arabian history and Category:Jews and Judaism in Arabia respectively. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Itaqallah, thank for your observations. I do not agree with you at all. Except for a few defunct countries and empires that once existed, but there was no such thing as an "Arabian Empire" AFAIK unless one talks of the various historical Caliphates. Therefore all the categories in Category:Jewish history by country follow the name of the country as it exists in the present as well as the geographical area it once encompassed because it incorporated all the policies and practices of "Arabia" in any case. This holds true for Saudi Arabia no less than it does for Italy or France that also existed in different forms and under different names ("Rome" or "Gaul" etc) with Jews in them. So you could start doing the same thing in Europe but historians don't, because even though Jewish history or the history of a country precedes the establishment of the modern states, yet the focus is the history of the Jews within the borders of the modern, meaninging the latest, state. Also, "Arabia" is a nebulous word, it's like "Europa" or "Latin America" as it can be used in the generic and broad sense as all places where Arab and Arabic have been widely spoken in the Middle East and North Africa. And on the "Arabian peninsula" it can legitimately refer to all the countries to be found on it, like the two Yemens, the Emirates, Quatar, even Kuwait. So forget about this neat trick because it won't work here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks for your observations IZAK. i can do without having my concerns branded 'neat trick[s]', i just think adding Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history - to articles like Safiyya who never lived in the state of Saudi Arabia - to be a terrible anachronism. ITAQALLAH 14:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression is this... If most of the notable events, or other info, took place while it was called Arabia (or the like), then a name change seems reasonable. However, I do agree that you may want to choose a name that excludes Yemen, given its unique and rich Jewish history. On the other hand, if the alternative names (eg Arabia) are currently confusing -- which I do not know myself, but this might be verified one way or another -- then it's not harmful to stick with Saudi Arabia, is it? Thanks. HG| Talk 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I also disagree that the main article should have been renamed "History of the Jews in Arabia" when it should be History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia (that has been made into a redirect), no ifs, ands, or buts. As an example, I have just edited the articles about Jewish history in the former Yugoslavia. There is in fact at present no article about the "History of the Jews in Yugoslavia" (as an analogy to "History of the Jews in Arabia") because the Wikipedia articles are based on whatever Jewish history has transpired in the geographic area/s of the former Yugoslavia, based on the names of current countries. Thus there are articles about History of the Jews in Serbia; History of the Jews in Slovenia; and History of the Jews in Croatia etc with the starting point being the latest and most modern country on the map now and then working backwards chronologically from there. The same with the countries of the former Soviet Union and with the countries that were once part of Austria-Hungary, the starting point is always in the present and then the Wikipedia articles and categories work their way chronologically towards the past and not the other way around. I hope I am making myself clear, if not, please ask. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on keeping this name, then any Jewish history prior to the existence of Saudi Arabia will be removed from this category. After all, if (at a particular time period) there was no "Saudi Arabian history", how could there be "Jewish Saudi Arabian history".Bless sins (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, when a country is created, it inherits all the previous history that took place in its territory. Your argument makes no sense. There were Jews in Mecca and Medina going back to ancient times. Now Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia, and does not Saudi Arabia include everything that happened in Mecca and Medina before there was a Saudi Arabia? In fact how could anyone understand how Mecca and Medina became holy cities in Saudi Arabia in the first place? The only way to do that is to know and accept the history of Mecca and Medina going back to the days of Muhamed, and in the days of Muhamed there were plenty of Jewish tribes in Mecca and Medina, where else did he learn about the Bible from if not from the Jews there? Don't you see how how bad your argument is? Your argument here would destroy any study of history. Recorded history always stretches back thousands of years starting from the present. For example, if you want to know about modern France you must study the earlier history of that country before anyone even thought there would even be a France or that it would be called "France." Once upon a time France was called "Gaul" so does that mean, using your logic, that the study and the name of Gaul should not be part of the study and the name of France? Obviously not. Who, besides you says such a ridiculous thing? One could give hundreds of examples like this. In fact I am surprized that I even have to have this discussion here since what I am saying is so absolutely clear and true. Noone on Wikipedia should act as if they are here to keep the names of the Jews out of Saudi Arabia's history and disconncted from it in any way whatsoever. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, and WP:NOR among many other violations. I am sorry to say, that these nonsensical arguments are an insult to human intelligence. IZAK (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, what about History of the Jews of Bilad el-Sudan? Or Bukharan Jews? Presumably, there'd be no objection to a "History of the Jews in the Roman Empire" if somebody wanted to write it. Anyway, maybe there isn't a strong case for an exception here. Meanwhile, it's not helpful for Bless sins to threaten to remove applicable text. Thanks. HG| Talk 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG, I am not arguing with you, I am opposing the illogic of what User Bless sins (talk · contribs) and User Itaqallah (talk · contribs) are saying, that one cannot include the previous history of a country created in modern times. That is just poor historiography and no academic would say such things. But sure, as for what you say, there is already a Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history and by all means let anyone write a fuller article about Ancient Jewish Roman history or History of the Jews in the Roman Empire as you say. If you will look at Category:Jewish history by country, all the lead articles are about "History of the Jews in ____" and for larger countries they become the lead articles in "Category:Jewish ____ history" so why should Saudi Arabia be an exception? Just because they have laws banning Jews from their territory since they became a country in modern times and some may wish that the name "Jews" not be mentioned in the same breath as "Saudi Arabia" yet the facts of history cannot be denied that merely because a country has become or even starts out Judenrein does not mean that it is devoid of a long Jewish history that preceded it's modern history or that may very well explain how a policy of not allowing Jews or the practice of Judaism within its geographical boders came to be. And in any case, as I have pointed out above, it was in the Saudi Arabia's most significant cities of Mecca and Medina that are also the sites holiest to Islam that vast Jewish communities existed and flourished (why they are still called "tribes" is beyond me) long before Muhamed came upon the scene and they were central to his life's story, the rise of Islam, they were plentifull in Mecca and Medina, and this all has a bearing upon and is a direct and central part of modern Saudi Arabia's history, regardless if they do or don't let Jews step into its borders, something which is hard to contemplate in this day an age. If Israel were to have such a policy, then all hell would be let loose 24/7. At any rate, the arguments of Users Bless sins and Itaqallah are very unconvincing to say the least. IZAK (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree that the previous history of an area can be placed under an article with its current name. But see below. HG| Talk 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest that it might be better to identify the region, not the government. We say "Germany", not "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Chinese" rather than "People's Republic of China", so it strikes me as making equal sense to say "Arabia" rather than "Saudi Arabia" if a complete history of the region is intended. The existence of categories like Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine strikes me as a particularly strong indicator that when a regime is mentioned, the intention is to include articles only during the period of that regime. Changing the category from "Saudi Arabia" to "Arabia" strikes me as reasonable and not worth a lot of discusssion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shira: It is worth a lot of discussion if, like me, you have been working on sorting out and populating these categories for a long time and I have a pretty good sense of what has been going on here. No-one is suggesting that names follow official government names, but they do follow the most common name used for the title of a country (not "official government names") as can be clearly seen in Category:Jewish history by country (not "by government"!) so that the History of the Jews in France is in "France" and the parent category is Category:Jewish French history and many more like this (but not to the exclusion of the history of Gaul either.) But they are all nevertheless countries, such as Saudi Arabia is and it should NOT be the exception by a sleight of hand so that suddenly it is not a country because nebulous Arabia can also be cited. The counter-example you choose of Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine (a category that I actually created a long time ago) is puzzling because it does specifically mention, and is meant to include, Jews who lived in a specific area at that time: Palestine under Ottoman rule and in the British Mandate of Palestine and not in some nebulous generalized territory like "Arabia" unless you wish to say that "Palestine" should match the borders of the Biblical Land of Israel that by some accounts of the Torah should stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates? Anyhow, I do not see the relevance of your comments nor can I fathom the point you are trying to make beyond "wrap it up and move along"...sorry, this is serious history, and just as there is an inclusive of its past History of the Jews in Slovakia and History of the Jews in Croatia (two very new countries much younger than Saudi Arabia) there is also a History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia that should exist. This is not to the exclusion of an article about an article about History of the Jews in Arabia, it's just that the two are separate topics and even though they overlap and intersect they are still dividable by historical standards, no less than articles about North America can be part of and dividable from articles about the United States of America, Canada and the North Pole because they do intersect and overlap at various points geographically and historically. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the main article for this category? The article is currently called History of the Jews in Arabia. So far, the whole contemporary history/situation can be summed up in 5 sentences. Then there's the category: it's almost all about Arabia before the current nation state. The one contemporary article is Arab Peace Initiative -- but why is that assigned to this category anyway? In sum, there's barely any need for a category dealing with Jews and "Saudi Arabia" except for the pre-modern tribes, Muhammad history, etc. So, why not use the pre-modern name? Thanks. HG| Talk 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These History categories are tricky - for example, the "History of Jews in Germany" covers the history of Jews in the Roman Empire, Frankish Empire, Holy Roman Empire, while much of the history of Jews in the German Confederation (e.g. that of the Jews of Hungary, parts of Romania, Serbia, Croatia) is excluded. Similarly, the History of the Jews in India covers Jews who lived in various ancient Kingdoms (under multiple names) that long predated the modern country of India. I think the "Federal Republic of Germany" thing is a bit of a red herring; "Germany", "India", etc. are the common English names for the modern states in the regions we are discussing, even if they have longer official names, just as "Saudi Arabia" is the common name for the modern state covering most of Arabia, even though its official name is "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". Changing the name to "Arabian history" would necessitate adding the history of the Jews in Yemen to the category, which, in fact, would be confusing in my view. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly would make sense to have an article and/or category "History of the Jews of the Roman Empire," which cannot be covered by any modern state alone. Ditto with Jews of Persia, who aren't discussed by historians as Jews of Iran. The Yemenites are special and already have their own categories, so they distinct from Arabia (whether as separate or subcat). HG| Talk 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG, I don't think you've really responded to my points; the History of the Jews in Germany quite correctly describes the history of Jews in the region covered by the modern state of Germany, even when that area was controlled by various empires, including the Roman. You statement that the "Yemenites are special" is an assertion, but there appears to be no rationale behind it, and if we were to have a Category on Jewish Arabian history, we would certainly need to include the history of the Jews of Yemen in that. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, historical regimes/regions that don't match up to modern states could be well served by articles with their (older) historical names. So my response was a counter-example: while Germany may cover part of the history of Jews in the Roman Empire, it obviously can't (or shouldn't) encompass the history of Jews throughout that empire, so a Roman Empire article would be good. For the Yemenites, the rationale follows my claim above: we have many articles and several categories dedicated to the Yemenites. As you say (as did I), the Jews of Yemen would be included under "History of Jew in Arabia" (or Arabian Peninsula) -- that's entirely appropriate. but don't worry -- we don't need to recategorize all the J-Yemen articles, only put their top categories under the Arabia one. (Thanks to category assignment guidelines.) So it's not a big deal, indeed it's helpful. HG| Talk 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To HG: At one time the original article was called History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia but then, as per the User:Bless sins, it was changed and redirected to History of the Jews in Arabia. Thus the main article for this category was and should indeed all along have been History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia, but it is just that it did not yet have a main category and the moment I went ahead and created this category recently (of Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history), as all such parent categories have been named in Category:Jewish history by country that the objections came flying again from User:Bless sins and User:Itaqallah who object to the usage of the word "Saudi" here since they have this bizarre "argument" that somehow because Saudi Arabia was "born" from the House of Saud in the 1930s, and it's a "new" or "modern" country, and it does not allow Jews or the practice of Judaism in its borders, that "therefore" it had "no" Jewish history, to which I keep pointing out, that regardless if a country is modern or Judenrein if it once had Jews living within its geographic boundaries then that history is part of its continuous history stretching back into its past (no less than if cave-man drawings were found in caves in Saudi Arabia, they would become part of the history of cave-men in Saudi Arabia.) Why any of this should be belabored and become an issue is puzzling. Seems that it's only with Saudi Arabia that this becomes an issue with Muslims who wish to somehow foist the false notion of the Islamic "purity" of Saudi Arabia (a kind of "Islamic Aryanism") that it has never had what they regard as the "tainted Jews" in their holy new Saudi state's borders. Which is all a lot of hokum from an academic, historical and scholarly point of view, since it's proven beyond a doubt that there was a significant Jewish presence in and around the cities of Mecca and Medina (Jews may even have owned most of the real estate there till Muhamed either killed them out or forced them to convert to Islam). Mecca and Medina are Islam's holiest cities and Saudi Arabia's big centers, and the Jewish history related to those cities automatically becomes part of the the history of Mecca and Medina which in turn are directly part of and connected to the history of modern-day Saudi Arabia. As for the amount or lack of content in any article, that is not a problem unique to any one subject. And this category in any case does have significant amounts of articles about the Jewish "tribes" that were part of Arabian history and now Saudi Arabian pre-state history. This should not have been as long and as complictaed a discussion as it has become. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I see a point here. It's won't be hard for readers looking for articles on Jews of Mecca or Medina etc to find it regardless of whether category is named Saudi or only Arabia. HG| Talk 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG: The point is a sensitive one for someone who has worked long and hard to line up all the categories in Category:Jewish history by country that go by that country's latest name, that is all I am saying. To you this may seem as no big deal. But "Arabia" is not a country, it is a nebulous term that may refer to the Arabian Peninsula and hence includes more than just Saudi Arabia, as it has all of Yemen, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (the Trucial States) (that includes seven emirates: seven states, Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain) and Bahrain, an island nation off the east coast of the peninsula. Or Arabia could also refer to the entire Arab speaking Arab World. For some it is perhaps meant as a name for the place where Saudi Arabia is partially located now, but to differentiate here would be like saying it's ok to have the History of the Jews in Serbia and the History of the Jews in Croatia cancelled out because they are very new countries and instead there should "only" be a History of the Jews in Yugoslavia or perhaps not even that, just a History of the Jews in Austria-Hungary since those countries and empires came earlier in history. Why is that so hard to fathom? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, I appreciate your hard work on this and many other aspects of Judaism/JH. However, I still think Arabia or Arabian Peninsula would be best for the associated articles. If it doesn't seem to fit under Category:Jewish history by country, then either make an exception, leave it out, or rename it Category:Jewish history by country and region or the like. I notice that History of the Jews of Bilad el-Sudan and Bukharan Jews aren't categorized by country either. Thanks. HG| Talk 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG: History of the Jews of Bilad el-Sudan is a very nebulous group who were essentially part of Jews living in Arab and Islamic dominated African lands. They could also be part of a big African Jews article, and as you can see on all the categories at the bottom of the page of the History of the Jews of Bilad el-Sudan article, it falls into the categories of specific African countries that now cover that same territory. So either way, your argument holds no water. The Bukharan Jews are a Halachically accepted and ethnic Jewish sub-group, being neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardi so I fail to see why you mention them here. You seem to miss the point that we are not dealing with mutually exclusive topics here. Indeed there has already been for a while a start with Category:Jewish history by region and the larger Category:Jews and Judaism by region, and see a very nice example of regions in Category:Jews and Judaism in Asia, all of which are well-developed with each and every existing country fitting neatly into larger regional categories. So while there can be an article about a generalized History of the Jews in Arabia, there must also be a specific History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article, as one is not mutually exclusive of the other because the Jews had lived for centuries in Arabia in general and specifically in countries like Saudi Arabia. Thanks for your compliments otherwise. IZAK (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, I mentioned Bukharan and Bilad, as examples of Jews from regions, only to address what seems to be your concern that Arabia is not a country. You say there must be a specific Saudi Arabia category. But why? If there aren't article to justify a category, then there's no need. The current articles would just as well, and I'd say better, fit under an Arabia category. (You seem mainly trying to get the S.A. category to make a point about their anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism is indeed a problem but not grounds for WP articles.) HG| Talk 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HG: Am I the "originator" of Saudi Arabia's policies to Jews? Very funny, but sorry not even close and certainly no cigar. What I am saying is simple. There is a categorization that is done by region and another one that is done by country. Now that is a country is modern and new, does it mean that is has no Jewish history that predates its founding? Of course not, because whatever happened and whenever it happened within the borders of that country are part of what led up to its modern-day history and existence. In addition, a country that has outright laws against Jews (and other non-Muslims) already has a self-created special negative history. You know it's funny, because this reminds me of that phenomenon that's called Antisemitism without Jews, that is found in lots of places. Such as in Malaysia, and in countries like modern Poland that had a pre-Holocaust Jewish population of about three million Jews and was left with almost none afterwards yet there was and is plenty of antisemitism in such places. Now what to call that in terms of a country's history? Is it not part of the cahin of Jewish history in those countries regardles, like in the case of Poland if it was a vast kingdom, or a vassal or free state, or Soviet colony, or now again democratic? It's still known as Poland (not "greater Poland") and the starting point can be from the modern state and work backwards into the history of that place. Saudi Arabia is no different from the historical perspective, we start from the givens of its founding in the 1930s (which does not make it a "new" country by the way) and it is 100% legitimate to trace back the histories of peoples and societies that existed and are associated with it. It happens to be that in Saudi Arabia's main cities of Mecca and Medina there is a long Jewish history, so it's directly part of that country's general and Jewish history. This is not rocket science and it's not about making a point, its about studying the Jewish history of the Jews in Saudi Arabia which implies an inclusive look at Saudi Arabia's policies and acts towards Jews in the present as well. The mere fact that Saudi Arabia in this day and dage, and since its founding does not let Jews into its territory, is an important part of Saudi Arabia's Jewish history because history is created by both acts of commission as well as acts of ommission. IZAK (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To HG: The Arab Peace Initiative is also known as the Saudi Arabian Peace Initiative because it's a peace initiative first proposed by then crown prince and now King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and when there is an article relating to a country's relationship to Jews, in this case, Saudi Arabia's attitudes to the Jews of Israel, which can reflect its own policies to Jews, whether in or out of its borders, it's then part of that country's Jewish history category, since there is no "current affairs" category. There should be more interesting articles available about the experiences and arrangements of Jewish American military people when they were stationed in Saudi Arabia in the wars against Iraq, which was ironically the first significant return of a Jewish population group to Saudi Arabia, over which the Saudis had little control. It is also known that in any case, Saudi Arabia took criticism from some puritanical Muslims for allowing American Christian "infidels" on its soil as part of the armies assembled to oust Iraq from Kuwait and the eventual ouster of the Saddam Husein regime from Iraq itself. So these are interesting times we are living in. IZAK (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the Saudi Arabian initiative. But it is about Israeli history. Sorry, but your notion that it "can reflect" Saudi relations to Jews there is very dakhuk (tenuous) and original research. Yes, maybe someday they'll be more interesting articles, but meanwhile all I see are articles on Jews in pre-modern Arabia. Again, it can be called Saudi Arabian history, that's what the Saudis call it, but a history category named with Arabia still strikes me as currently more suitable. HG| Talk 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG: Are you aware that Israel is the Jewish state right? And when one of the most anti-Jewish regimes makes a peace proposal to such a state it becomes part of its own history, and can be legitimately be classed and classified as a part of its "Jewish history" seen in the context of its long-standing opposition to Jews and Judaism in its own territory and, for historians, taking an even loeger historical view, this is a major development, perhaps on the same track as that of Spain, going back to the Spanish Inquisition when Jews were persectued and finally expelled from Spain in 1492 but the tide of history began to slowly turn until finally Jews were subsequently allowed back to live in Spain officially in 1968, over 475 years later, and if it can happen in Spain it can happen in Saudi Arabia because in Jewish history one always takes the long view, even if that may baffle people who wish to think only in terms of short modern histories. The modern histories are not in conflict with fitting the current picture into a broader framework. It's all part of the very long chapters that are part of Jewish history. For Jews nothing in history is ever "short" because it's a thousands-year old venture. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, the idea of interpreting Saudia Arabia's Israel policy as a topic about "Jews in Saudi Arabia" would fail logically by reductio. Above you're concerned about consistency (w/categories). If we consistently interpreted every country's Israel policy as a topic about Jews in their country, (and this would include Israel too, right?), then we'd hardly have a need for different Israel and Jews/Judaism categories. Anyway, it's OR. Thanks, kol tuv, HG| Talk 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG, from your assertions it is self-evident that you do not appreciate the way historians think or write. And umm HG, since 1948, the subject of a country's Israel relations and its relations to its own Jewish population is often one subject and it's for sure one history. (But this would not mean that it should all become a mish-mash combination. Not all things in Israel are "Jewish" and not all Jewish things outside of Israel are connected to Israel. Discretion and brains, as ever, is the key.) For example, the USSR's policies towards Israel cannot be untangled from its policies to its Jewish ciitizens over the years. Or just listen to the rantings of Ahmadinejad to hear all the connections he makes between the "freedom" the Jews in his country enjoy, the existence of the State of Israel (and how much it bugs him) and Jewish history in Europe, especially the Holocaust. Jews in the US are faced by questions of dual loyalty and the interactions between the Jewish diaspora with the Land of Israel in all its incarnations is complex and nothing new! And yes, there is an overlap from time to time between Jews and Judaism topics and categories and Israel-connected ones (but that does not mean we merge them, silly), just that Israel has only existed as a state since 1948 whereas the Jews and Judaism have been around since the days of Abraham starting about 3,500 years ago, quite a difference wouldn't you say. And again, a revelation of your lack of serious concern and appreciation for the genuine and truly long-term flow and interconnections of Jewish history (see that article for all the connections.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, it's ad hominem to say that I "lack of serious concern and appreciation" for Jewish history. But you don't engage in such personalizing argumentation, do you? Pls retract and, at your convenience, formulate a substantive rebuttal. HG| Talk 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HG: Are you a historian? If yes, I apologize, and if not, you need to be aware that historians take the long look at things. My answer was an excellent one and I will let it stand. If you find any specific point or line of reasoning faulty point it out, as I would for you. Thanks.IZAK (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your ad hominem statement, an ordinary apology would be appropriate. Meanwhile, your setting up the category for Jews in the Arabian peninsula strikes me as a very positive step. HG| Talk 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, my suggestion here is "Jewish history in the Arabian peninsula"/"History of Jews in the Arabian peninsula". I prefer it over "Jewish history in Arabia". And yes, "History of Jews in the Arabian peninsula" would include Yemeni history. But so what? Until recently the boundaries between Saudi Arabia and Yemen didn't exist. So I don't see problems arising.Bless sins (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bless sins, that would be a stretch of the imagination as they are such different places. There is an entirely unique type of Jew known as Yemenite Jews so are we now going to label them "Arabian Jews" or "Saudi Arabian Jews" too? How about Jews who may have lived in the United Arab Emirates or Dubai? Now that is really stretchinhg it very far and it would surely be original research. You should actually suggest that there should be an article about Saudi Arabia and Jews or Saudi Arabian policies towards Jews and Judaism that would really get into the underlying questions of some problems, but it would be academically dishonest and look like a real sleight of hand to escape the gap created by the absence of an article or category about History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia (and not the redirect that it now is) as you have for any country without these kind of contorted and distorted objections. IZAK (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Mecca

[edit]

But you are stretching your imagination. Currently the "Constitution of Medina" (COM) is placed in the category. The COM guaranteed Jews sovereignty over their affairs and religious tolerance. But in modern day Saudi Arabia, it would be a stretch to say that Jews are granted either of those concepts. Another thing: at the time of constitution of Medina there were Jewish communities and tribes. Today, Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim.[1] I highly doubt that Saudi Arabia has any Jewish citizens. Finally can you come up with reliable sources that say the COM is part "History of Jews in Saudi Arabia"?Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the COM included Jews, then it is part of Jewish history in that country as much as the Nuremberg Laws that excluded Jews is part of the History of the Jews in Germany and that is no stretch of the imagination. Also as I have shown in the article, in recent years there have been Jews in the US military and the US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who have been very active in modern Saudi Arabia. In any case, no sane person divorces the history of a modern country from its ancient origins. Is Muhamed alive today? No, so why is he part of Saudi Arabia's history? The Jews in the times of Muhamed were at least just as important as he was to that country, so why should they be excluded from modern Saudi Arabia whilst Muhamed is left in? Do you see this lack of logic and refusal to accept the facts of history here? I am sure you can do better than this state of denial. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, the request for a reliable source is reasonable. WP policies ask that we rely on secondary sources to interpret such matters. The info should then be placed in the relevant article(s). Thanks. HG| Talk 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my request for reliable sources, (as also stated by HG). Does a scholar treats the COM as part of "History of Jews in Saudi Arabia"? Secondly, Muhammad put the Arabian peninsula on the map. Because of him, Mecca and Medina are significant places. His tradition has replaced all other traditions in Saudi Arabia. The King of Saudi Arabia is called "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques". Without Muhammad there would be no mosques (let alone "holy mosques"). You are right that Muhammad is not alive today. But his legacy has played a very important role in Saudi history, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In conclusion, I reiterate my request for reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sins, I do not wish to waste time going around in circles and I suggest that you re-read all that I have written above, as it will answer you. Honestly, just read the article. Even a defunct historical ducument is part of a country's history if it's part of its own people's history. That is logic. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moshe Gil's Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages (2004) devotes a whole chapter to the Constitution of Medina - Chapter 2, pp. 21-48. That should solve that issue. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bless Sins, sorry if this sounds like I'm changing my mind (heaven forfend!), but I think that COM does connect to Saudi Arabia in a simple way, wherein sources aren't needed. Basically, the history of a city is seen as the history of the modern state in which the city is located. Cp., Rome in History of Italy. So, whatever happened to Jews in Medina can be categorized under history of Js in SA. To be sure, COM also needs to be categorized under Islamic history/law. Do this make sense? Anyway, I did find one 2ry source making the tie-in, and I think there are others. "The islamic ethos and the spirit of humanism" by Amyn B. Sajoo (International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 1995) who mentions "Thirteen centuries after the Constitution of Medina, freedom of worship is denied in Saudi Arabia for Christians, Jews and even Shi'i Muslims...." Hope this is useful. Take care, HG| Talk 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, let me see how this whole set of articles and issues can be better organized so that we do not keep on arguing at cross-purposes. IZAK (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, take a look at Arabia (disambiguation) that gives a few different ways that the name "Arabia" can be used and that is the source of our back and forth discussion and confusion here. IZAK (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, answer the question: which reliable sources treat COM as part of "History of Jews in Saudi Arabia"?Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bless sins: I am trying to understand what you mean, so I have taken a closer look. Join me as I take a closer look and try to see if we can agree on something here. The first paragraph in the Constitution of Medina article says:

The Constitution of Medina, also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in 622. It constituted a formal agreement between the Prophet Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, and pagans. (See: Firestone (1999) p. 118; "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam Online, Watt. Muhammad at Medina and R. B. Serjeant "The Constitution of Medina." Islamic Quarterly 8 (1964) p.4.) The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community-the Ummah. (R. B. Serjeant, The Sunnah Jami'ah, pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the Tahrim of Yathrib: Analysis and translation of the documents comprised in the so-called "Constitution of Medina." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 41, No. 1. 1978), page 4.)
  1. This event happened in 622 in Medina that is today in Saudi Arabia. At that time there may have been more Jews than the new Muslims in that area.
  2. Medina is one of the most important and holy cities in Islam and it is in Saudi Arabia today. At that time there were many Jews living near and around Medina. Muhammad would not have made a constitution that touched on Jews if they weren't significant.
  3. It concerns Muhammad directly, and he is the holiest man in Islam and the House of Saud are the modern day (Sunni) guardians of Muhammad's teachings, and of the city of Medina, in present-day Saudi Arabia, and of the holy sites of Islam as they are the Caliphs of today, and they are essentially the (Sunni) spiritual heirs of Muhammed. Muhammad had plenty of personal connections with Jews, he even married one, Rayhana.
  4. It is about Muslims and Islam and their relations to Jews and other religious groups in areas that are covered by today's Saudi Arabia and Muslims and Islam are the complete masters of Saudi Arabia. In fact the Saudis consider themselves to be the continuation of the self-same Ummah that Muhammad united and taught and converted to Islam that had made them into the Muslims who lived in that place since 622, as tribes, until eventually it became the turn of the Saudis to become the latest version of Muhammad's Ummah and its leaders.
  5. It is a constitution for that era and area impacting Jews (there were no national states then) that was something done by Muhammad, in the name of Islam, in Medina, concerning tribes and religions in the areas and territories that are covered by the new state of Saudi Arabia.
  6. It may also be compared to modern day efforts in that area, such as Saudi Arabia laws that go against the COM itself. Such is the nature of the study of history, the study of jurisprudence, the study of the legal history. See also Category:Constitutions, where there is a sub-category for Category:Defunct constitutions (where COM is placed) but most importantly there is also Category:Constitutional law so that legal scholars can study and compare defunct versus functioning constitutions.

It would therefore seem that for the above reasons, the Constitution of Medina article can stay in the Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history for the same reason that the Jewish Emancipation happened all over Europe from the 1700s but was later reversed in the Holocaust of World War II or that in England there was the Edict of Expulsion of the Jews in England of 1290 that was later reversed by the Jewish Naturalization Act 1753 leading to rights for Jews in England and that all fall under Category:Jewish English history. It would look funny if a serious constitution concerning Jewish-Islamic relations, negotiated by Muhammad in Medina, that is till central to Saudi Arabia's existence should be excluded from the category. What sources are needed to place an article in a category? In the COM article, as you see it above, there are sources connecting the main subjects, and I have outlined the reason why they qualify to go into something as generilzed as the Category:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. It is enough that the article has a general connection to the main subject of the category. There is no Wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.Probably true.
2.What do you mean by "important"? Religiously, yes. Politically, no.
3."House of Saud are the modern day (Sunni) guardians of Muhammad's teachings, and of the city...they are the Caliphs of today" You will need a very good source for such an exceptional claim. "Muhammad had plenty of personal connections with Jews, he even married one, Rayhana." Actually, he married two: Rayhana and Safiyya.
4."Saudis consider themselves to be the continuation of the self-same Ummah" Again a very exceptional claim. If you read Saudi newspapers, you fill many editorials against Muslim (illegal) immigrants to Saudi Arabia.
5. Territorially, yes, it can be considered Saudi Arabia.
IZAK, you appear to be missing the point. All I asked for you is to find reliable sources that say the COM is part of "Jewish Saudi Arabian history"/"History of Jews in Saudi Arabia" etc.
Form what I know, plenty of reliable sources mention Jews in relation to the COM. But I have seen no reliable source mentioning Saudi Arabia in relation to the COM.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, pls see my comment placed above. I think #5 is sufficient, though I also found at least one reliable source mentioning Saudi Arabia in relation to the COM. Regards, HG| Talk 04:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution to Arabia vs Saudi Arabia vs Arabian Peninsula

[edit]

Please see the following articles that should now solve the problems we have been discussing:

This took me a while to write, research and organize, but it was well worth the time and efforts I put into it to create clarity and avoid confusion from now on. Thank you very much, IZAK (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Jewish_Saudi_Arabian_history&oldid=1252995523"