Talk:Jewish views on Muhammad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shalom Aleichum

An introductory message for creation of the talk page. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for removal of content about Rayhana

The original content in this sub-section was as follows:-
Rayhana bint Amr ibn Khunafa was from the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were killed in the Battle of the Trench all the women were shared between Mohammed and his followers. Muhammad took Rayhana for himself and is said to have offered to make her a wife instead of a concubine. Rayhana is said to have been the Jewish woman described in Bukhari's Hadith 4.394 as having poisoned Muhammad possibly resulting in his death three or four years later. Very little is known about Rayhana.
Problems with the content are as below:-
1) Rayhana didn't outlive Mohammad. Rayhana says Not much is known about Rayhana; she died a year before Muhammad.
2) The claim above viz.Rayhana is said to have been the Jewish woman described in Bukhari's Hadith 4.394 as having poisoned Muhammad is false because Bukhari's Hadith 4.394 says

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394

Narrated Abu Huraira: "When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth? They said, "Yes.' The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He siad, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it. Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you." (See http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html)

This sub-section could thus be classified as WP:Original Research and hence was deleted. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you deleted Rayhana bint Amr ibn Khunafa from Muhammad's Jewish Wives, instead of simply addressing the two problems you state, in editing accordingly. You didn't see a problem with her as both Jewish and a wife of Muhammad, right?

Now in regards to the two problems you stated above... 1) that Rayhana didn't outlive Mohammad, whereby you state instead that she died a year before Muhammad as the article on her claims. Well, another wikipedia article is not a sufficient source. There is in fact a disagreement amongst Muslim scholars on whether she died before or after Muhammad, and is a minor detail. Now, 2) in regards to Bukhari's Hadith 4.394. I didn't state she was mentioned there, rather that she was said to have been the Jewish woman who carried out the poisoning as described in this hadith. Furthermore, see Nomani, vol. II, pg. 173 as a source for her being that Jewish woman.

ephix (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good questions Ephix. 1) Since there is a disagreement amongst scholars (Muslim as well as otherwise), it is essential that we as co-editors of WP ensure that we put in reliable sources as references for any claims we make. Besides, from the point of view of the article it isn't a minor detail since you've said Both Safiyya and Rayhana are said to have outlived Muhammad and returned to their Jewish people after Muhammad's death. (italics mine). We must remove this claim in order to retain Rayhana's mention. 2) Nomani might not be a reliable source with reference to Bukhari 4.394 since it seems to be making a claim which isn't there in the actual Hadith (as seen from the link I've presented above). Further, if you read Safi urRahman Al-Mubarakpuri's description in the 'The Sealed Nectar' [1] one can see that while Prophet Muhammad's (S) severe pain at the time of death was indeed due to the poisoning at Khaibar, Mubarakpuri attributes the poisoning to have been done by one Jewess named Zainab bint Al-Harith.

“ After the conquest of Khaibar, a Jewish woman called Zainab bint Al-Harith offered the Prophet [pbuh] a roasted sheep she had poisoned. He took a mouthful, but it was not to his liking so he spat it out. After investigation, the woman confessed that she had stuffed the food with poison alleging that if the eater were a king, she would then rid herself of him, but should he be a Prophet, then he would be bound to learn about it. The Prophet [pbuh], however, connived at her treacherous attempt, but ordered that she be killed when Bishr bin Al-Bara’ died of that poison.[2] ”

We might need better and more reliable sources to attribute that allegation to Rayhana. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, Rayhana belonged to the tribe of Banu Qurayzha (due to her marriage with a man from that tribe) whereas biographers of Prophet Muhammad (S) have maintained that a Jewess from the Banu Nadir tribe attempted to poison Muhammad to avenge her slain relatives (See Ibn Hisham (1955). English translation in Stillman (1979), p. 148–149.) This needs to be investigated as well before we put up the statement about poisoning (with reliable references of course) 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was Zaynab bint Al-Harith or Rayhana, we dont know. The sources we have both provided conflict which is very typical, and we can't judge which source is more credible based on our understanding of a scriptural verse, so I'm OK with however you spin the story. In the future please don't delete submitted material, rather amend details as you see fit. ephix (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spinning stories is somewhat of a derogatory figure of speech as I see it, but I cant say if it does not sound quite as conniving to you. Hoping the terminology doesn't hurt, I'd say I deleted that content because it seemed to me to be more like a story spun (according to WP standards) since it made claims without citing any reliably strong references. I promise I'll follow the 'amend details' advice in future though. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That didn't sound quite so good and witty after clicking save page button. No offence intended bro. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OK man, looks like we're getting this rolling which is the main thing. looks we have another editor on the job. Welcome Elazeez! lol, you're contributions are valued, but um, well, we'll see. ephix (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:-) 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote "brother" Abdel: "I'd say I deleted that content ... since it made claims without citing any reliably strong references.". Hmmm, very interesting. I can see how "reliable source"-mongers have expanded their campaign across Wikipedia. This article is not even a BLP. When, Itaq joins in; things are going to get even more interesting. (Lol) - Agnistus (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are a requirement for all articles on Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 00:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow we don't quite get to miss you do we, Agnistus? (Only Joking, please don't any take offence... we sure miss you sometimes now ;-). Hey, try as I may, I still don't get the joke(?) behind the usage of double quotes for the word 'brother'. Is it a taboo word or something in some language? Hey BTW down in South India, brother's also called 'anna', for eg. 'Anna Arjun' 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

reason for removing the "Authoritative texts of Judaism that mention Muhammad" section

The entire section is original research. It consists of interpritations of religious texts that are not verified by any scholar or reliable source. It is also not neutral. Scholars must make the interpritations of the religious texts, not the texts themselves. YahelGuhan (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As we have Islam and Judaism and Muhammad and the Jews, is there really any need (and enough material) for a whole article? Can't it be a sub-section in another article? ITAQALLAH 00:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. YahelGuhan (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just been looking through the article. I don't really see any salvageable content regarding "Jewish views of Muhammad." The bulk of the content is about the constitution, which could easily be related in Muhammad and the Jews. I'd propose redirecting this to another article. Specific comments by Jewish theologians would be interesting if they could be properly sourced, but again I think that could be worked into Islam and Judaism. I also agree with you that the the content you removed either needs to be properly sourced, or should remain absent from the article. ITAQALLAH 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... you do have a point there Itaqallah. This might look better redirected to another article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking those out Yahel. It would be fine to source Islamic scholars citing the Bible verses as references to Muhammad in an article dealing with Islam's view of Muhammad, but in the Jewish view these verses bear no reference to Muhammad. ephix (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This article is equivalent to Judaism's view of Jesus, so if anything Muhammad and the Jews should be merged into this article for consistency. I would say Islam and Judaism deals more with how the two peoples and their religion interacted though and as apart from this topic. I'm not saying we should merge Muhammad and the Jews in this article, I think that article should give the historic perspective based on all material available, and this article Judaism view on him and his alleged prophethood. Therefore I'm deleting material that has been submitted here that has nothing to do with Judaism's specific view of him and his prophethood. ephix (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Diet

Shouldn't there be more on dietary requirements in this article.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR removed

I've restored the earlier lede and background sections, which had gotten mangled, and also removed a bunch of stuff from sources that didn't even mention Muhammad - please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had to remove some more (recently inserted) WP:NOR that again did not refer to Muhammad. The worst of it was this paragraph:

Maimonides' theological views are not universally accepted in Judaism. Joseph Albo believed that other peoples than Jews may establish different religions based in their own Divine revelations. Some other rabbis believed that non-Jew don't have to follow strictly the seven Noahide laws and may create their own religious systems. . Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz believes that all major world religions, including Islam, are compliant with the Noahide laws . The British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, a proponent of religious pluralism, hold similar views and wrote that "God has spoken through Judaism to Jews, through Christianity to Christians, and through Islam to Muslims.".

References

As far as I can tell, none of these sources refer to Muhammad. Please let me know if any do. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they do not refer to Muhammad. But they do mentions Islam as a proper religion for gentiles and disagree with Maimonides' negative view of other religions, thus demonstrating that Judaism's opinion on this subject is far from monolithic.Laplandian (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about Judaism's views on Muhammad. Don't add this material that is not about Muhammad again. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

More WP:NOR removed

I've remove more recently inserted WP:NOR as follows:

Some well known medieval rabbis in Islamic lands quote Muhammad's words from the Qur'an and Sunna as a valuable source of theological, ethical and philosophical wisdom, while not accepting, most likely, Muhammad as a prophet. Numerous examples of such quotations are found in the Sufi-influenced Bahya ibn Paquda's ethical and philosophical treatise Al Hidayah ila Faraid al-Qulub, known by its Hebrew title Chovot HaLevavot (Duties of the Heart). Due to the popularity of this book, some Muhammad's words in Ibn Paquda's rendering were accepted incidentally as authoritative by many Jews, including the 18th century Hasidim. . Maimonides, a highly authoritative figure in Orthodox Judaism, ruled that non-Jews have to follow strictly the seven Noahide laws and may not establish new religions. However, Maimonides' view is not universally accepted in Judaism. .Jonathan Sacks, the Orthodox Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, a proponent of religious pluralism, wrote that "God has spoken through Judaism to Jews, through Christianity to Christians, and through Islam to Muslims.". Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz believes that all major world religions, including Islam, are compliant with the Noahide laws .

The first paragraph is about the Qur'an, supposedly the words of God as whispered to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Muslims would not accept that these are the "words of Muhammad". Moreover, and more importantly, I seriously doubt that the sources themselves refer to them as the "Muhammad's words" - if they do, quote them doing so. If not, stop playing games. Next, the sources in the second paragaraph do not refer to Muhammad at all. Muhammad is not Islam, and Islam is not Muhammad. Do not add this WP:NOR again, it is becoming disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

References

I don't play games. Read Diana Lobel's book "Sufi-Jewish Dialogue: Philosophy and Mysticism in Bahya Ibn Paqūda's Duties of the Heart." She demonstrates that Bahya ibn Paquda himself, who grew up among the Muslims and used Sufi sources on regular basis, perfectly knew that he is quoting the Q'uran and Sunna. Lobel's book mentions explicitly Muhammad. She also mentions that Hasidim today unknowingly accept certain passages from Muhammad [sic] as authoritative. Later I will look up the book and provide exact pages where Muhammad is explicitly mentioned. Laplandian (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please quote her directly referring to Muhammad. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I will.Laplandian (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Muhammad. This article explains Maimonides' reasoning and why he does not agree with Al-Fayyumi's view. It should be also explained that Maimonides' theology is not universally accepted and there may be room to accept Al-Fayyumi's opinion or at least to be as picky as Maimonides about other religions. Meanwhile, the section about Maimonides contained repeated phrases, OR and weasel words, which I deleted. Laplandian (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources regarding Judaism's views of Muhammad make that argument, than you can include it, citing the reliable secondary source that makes it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add a link to Marc Shapiro's article to the section about Al-Fayyumi, which includes a short discussion about Al-Fayyumi's views on non-Jewish prophets, thus implicitly - though not explicitly - mentioning Muhammad, as he is the only post-Biblical prophet explicitly mentioned by Al-Fayyumi. It's a very relevant tertiary source that gives a broad scholarly perspective on Al-Fayuumi's vs. Maimonides. I felt once myself puzzled after reading Al-Fayyumi, until I read Shapiro's excellent research. Laplandian (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you won't, because Shapiro doesn't mention Muhammad. Review WP:NOR, and don't use any sources unless they explicitly (not "implicitly") refer to Muhammad. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but WP:NOR says nothing against obvious implicit references that any intelligent person can easily understand. Shapiro goes to the main article about Al-Fayyumi. But I delete the statement that Maimonides' view is "Mainstream Judaism", which is unsourced and has surely nothing to do with Muhammad. Laplandian (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. "obvious implicit references that any intelligent person can easily understand" = WP:NOR. To be directly related and directly support the topic, it must be explicit, not implicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Marc Shapiro demonstrated that al-Fayyumi's pluralistic views on religion are shared by numerous other rabbinical sources: The clearest support for Sacks' position is provided by R. Netanel ben al-Fayyumi (twelfth century), who maintains that "God sent different prophets to the various nations of the world with legislations suited to the particular temperament of each individual nation." Although Sacks is motivated by a post-modern vision, the medieval R. Netanel also claimed that God's truth was not encompassed by Judaism alone.

It is directly related and directly supports the topic, which is Al-Fayyumi's acceptance of Muhammad's prophecy vs. Maimonides' total rejection of religious innovations. Shapiro does not advance synthesis of anything new, but simply provides a historical perspective on Maimonides-like and non-Maimonidean views on the subject on non-Jewish religious innovations in Judaism. It gives a historical sense to the whole issue. I really don't understand the objection, but fine, whatever. Laplandian (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the tags be removed?

Do the issues of non-neutrality and incompleteness still apply to this article? I think it looks much better now, does it? Laplandian (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives on Muhammad

Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad#Reverts by Doc Tropics. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

I have just removed the first sentence:

• Judaism has no special or particular view of Muhammad, and very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Muhammad.

This is a blatant untruth. Who wrote this waffle and why has it been permitted to remain as the leading sentence to this article?

• The second sentence, (now the first) makes it absolutely clear that Judaism holds a strong and particular view on the nature of Muhammad and whether or not he was, in fact, a "prophet".

Of course Judaism must hold a strong view on Muhammad. How can it be otherwise, when Muhammad, as recorded in the Quran, repeatedly uses the Jews as the prime examples of those who have lied (about both historical fact and God's message), who have failed to believe the prophet (i.e. Muhammad), and whom God will punish?

Amandajm (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Because very few authoritative texts of Judaism actually take note of Muhammad, or care much about him. Texts of Judaism tend to focus on Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Muhammad is mentioned and viewed as a false prophet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:1A0:F4FD:DDEB:D1C:27E9:E4AF (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)