Talk:People of the Book/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fighting Nonbeilievers

I removed the part saying : Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Qur'an 9:29] Because if you read the verse prior to this one, it is clear that it refers not to Jews and Christians (people of the book,) but pagans and idol worshippers This is also clear by seeing that the verse says " believe not in God nor the Last Day" and jews and christians believe in god and in judgement day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.147.132 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Article claims:

All others are considered idolators?, who are to be either murdered or converted.

Excuse me? Where does the Koran say that idolators are to be "murdered"?

I've removed the statement for now, as I suspect many Muslims would dispute it. --Stephen Gilbert

Yeppers. Especially given that many PotB were neither murdered nor killed for many years while in Islamic states. The whole point of dhimmi is that unlike other religions, PotB are tolerated. Martin

Tolerated, as long as they remain dhimmis. But if a Jew or Christian demands to be treated as an equal, the all bets are off. RK

RK, you've added a long para here on the status of dhimmi - but we have an article on dhimmi, so surely we should rely on that to provide the details? I think we should only summarise the key points of dhimmi here.

Second point - do the later parts of the Qu'ran actively rescind the earlier parts? Or do they merely contradict? Martin

The answer depends on whether you ask a religious Muslim, or a historian. Religious Muslims (like religious Jews and Christians) will deny that any contradictions exist in their scripture at all! They hold that all contradictions are only "apparent", and they produce complicated apologetics to prove that contradictory passages don't contradict each other at all. As a Jew, I am well familiar with this phenomenon, having seen this from the inside: Orthodox Jews hold that there are no contradictions at all in the Torah, and that all contradictions are only "apparent". During my reading on Christianity a few years ago I found precisely the same phenomenon in much of the American Protestant Christian community. (Liberal religious Jews, Muslims and Christians usually reject this approach, and admit that contradictions exist.) Historians usually hold that when contradictions exist, they are evidence of historical development. Sometimes the original author changes his mind in his later years; sometimes a contradiction is the result of a passage that was added many years after the death of the author. This is much easier for Wikipedians to talk about when it comes to the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. Many of us here are familiar with higher biblical criticism on these books. For Islam, however, this is a tougher issue since so few people are familiar with higher Koranic criticism (in the academic sense of the word) and text study. RK

I was told by a Muslim missionary that later parts of the Qur'an can "abrogate" earlier parts. He said it was written over a 22-year period, and in an early stage, God allowed the Arabs to use alcholic beverages, and in a later stage, he thought they had advanced to the point where they could give up such use, and then told them to do so. Michael Hardy 22:05 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

User User:Usedbook writes:

Although it is commonly held that this group includes the Jews, Christians and Muslims, it is equally evident that Muslims are the only extant group to legitimately hold this title. According to Islam, all nations were given a Messenger and guidance from Allah. Eventually, due to the abandonment and adherence to strict monotheism, the followers of Moses earned God's Anger (by supposedly worshipping a calf and Ezra)and the followers of Jesus Christ went astray (by supposedly worshipping Jesus Christ). It is popularly held by the vast majority of Muslims that the Holy Tawrah (revelation given to Moses) and the Holy Injeel (revelation given to Jesus Christ) are no longer extant and that the present day Bible and Torah share little or no resemblance to the divine copy. According to Islam, Muhammad was sent during a time of spiritual darkness and once the Qur'an was finally established, all past revelations became abrogated, making the Last Testament not only for the Arab nation but for all mankind until the Jay of Judgement.

More unorthodox Muslim groups consider the Karaites, Samaritans, Zoroastrians and even Mandaeans to be People of the Book.

This is inaccurate and needs further explanation. The People of the Book as in the Quran refers to "groups with previous revelations, prior to Islam" even it has been corrupted (from the Muslim Point of view). Therefore, this applies to various Christians, Jews, Samaritans (they have the Torah, and are considered a group of Jews), Karaites (a splinter group of Jews as well), Mandeans (called Sabeans in the Quran), Zoroastrians (because of Zarathushtra being a prophet of God, although dualism crept into the faith later, the Zurvanism heresy, and was dominant in 7th century) -- Khalid B.

There has never been a doubt as to the Jewishness of Karaites - we are simply Jews who do not accept the Oral Torah. When the temple last stood, the majority of Jews did not accept the Talmud and were called עם הארץ. --Josiah 04:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article claims that Zoroastrianism is older than all three Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). While it is obviously older than the first two of the three, there is no proof that it is older than Judaism. I think that this statement should be removed. 82.21.81.155 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New intro

Izak, do you have any cites for "People of the Book" being used outside of an Islamic religious context? It's scarcely common English usage. - Mustafaa 11:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outside Islamic context, abrahamic religion is used. Ausir 17:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For Jews TODAY "Am HaSefer" in Hebrew is the People of the Book

Here are a some random selections proving that the phrase "Am Hasefer" as well as (and meaning "People of the Book") is currently used and applied in Jewish circles. Here are some random examples:

• The People of the Book: Jews and Universal Literacy by Erica Brown [1]]
• See entry under: Goren, N., Garfinkel, L. et al. editors. Yahadut Lita [Lithuanian Jewry], vol. 1. Tel Aviv: Am Hasefer, 1959. (H) [2]
• Course description: Am Hasefer Program by:Besdin, Abraham R. Dept. of Adult Education Yeshiva University [3]
• See entry under: Torah and Other Sacred Texts: The Hebrew bible is basic to Jewish life. The Jewish people are sometimes known as "The People of the Book" ( Am HaSefer). [4]
• See entry for Grade 5 Basic Judaism Description: "...This course is intended to teach core Jewish concepts to students. It exposes students to classic Jewish texts, terms...Topics include...Am HaSefer..." [5]
• See entry for: Pursuing Justice In Our Cities, Part III: Working in Coalitions: "Minna Morse wraps up her three-part series on Jewish urban justice groups with this article on coalition building. Part II, Teaching the "People of the Book"..." [6]

Cool. I've added a mention of that usage to the first paragraph; if someone writes an article (say Am haSefer or People of the Book (Judaism)), we could make a disambig if necessary. - Mustafaa 08:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you. Makes sense. IZAK 08:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe the Hebrew is עם האספר. That's just using my little Hebrew phrasebook though, best wait for confirmation from someone qualified. Also from someone utterly unqualified, I hope no one minds me not liking the transliteration. From the Hebrew alphabet article I think ‘am ha-sefer" (the def. art. 'ha' behaves like 'al' in Arabic I believe) is not only more æsthetic, but simple as well, as far as transliteration conventions go. Khirad 10:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Added the Hebrew writing, minus the aleph (א), which doesn't make sense here. However, one thing I'd like more info on: when did the phrase "People of the Book" become common usage among Jews? It's very common now, and it seems that the term has been decontextualized from its original usage in Islam and made into a celebration of Jewish bookishness and learning. My feeling is that this is a fairly recent development...does anyone know of pre-20th century usages of "People of the Book" in a Jewish context? I bet this usage is very new. Babajobu 23:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sikhs

Are Sikhs "People of the Book"? Are they considered "stranded" Muslims?

Well, they are certainly 'innovators', or heretics in the Islamic view I would imagine. Khirad^talk 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Two questions on intro

Hello, I just saw this page, and there are two things I cannot understand about this introduction:

• Why is the Zabur not listed among the divine scriptures?
• It was my understanding that there was some dispute as to who the "Sabians" are (or were). The Sabians article seems to bear this out. But here it is treated as fact that they are the Mandaeans. Why is that?

— Nowhither 23:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert War

Mike18xx -

I personally thought that User:Yuber's version was perfectly fine (except for a grammar issues). But I attempted to make it more NPOV by putting the treatment of the People of the Book below the "Similarties in belief" section which, in my opinion, is of greater importance. I also changed the positive link in the "External links" section from an Islamic site to an inter-faith site. I even put the item about dhimmis in its own sub-section. If anything, it's now more POV towards the negative side (although I don't think it really is).

About calling Yuber a vandal, I'd like you to take note that the version prior to this wrangling between you and him is the one he is advocating (see comparison). It simply does not make sense to label him as a vandal as he is simply advocating what originally was on the page. And why are you, Mike18xx, complaining that Yuber's not making comments on the talk page? You haven't either. Look over this version. If you don't like it, that's fine. But please follow your own rule and state your complaints on this talk page. As Yuber's version is the "original" and my version is a slight modification of the original, it should be you who has to justify the major changes being made. joturner 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I conclude he's a vandal for what I consider very sound reasons leading to inevitable deductions....but let's not talk about him, and stick to the specifics of the issue at hand:

1. It is "backwards" to approach any controversal subject by first listing the defense of the perpetrators -- can you imagine how jarring it would be for you to read an account of, say, the Antebellum South, which began by listing "choice" quotes regarding lenient recommendations plantation owners gave to their overseers concerning the treatment of their subjects? It's utterly bizarre.

2. It is grossly POV as well as inaccurate to portrary the perpetrators as "giving rights" and "protection" when they are doing precisely the contrary. The whole turgid mess is an appalling whitewash, despite a few throw-a-bone references in the links, and everyone involved in whatever horrific "consensus" (if any) Hell-spawned it ought to be very ashamed of themselves.--Mike18xx 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical use of People of the Book. The rules expressed in the Qur'an may or may not be followed, but that is what the Qur'an is said. And even though, in your opinion, non-Muslims are not given rights and protection today, there have been times, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age when Muslims have been more adherent to that idea. I fail to see the lack of neutral point of view; the article gives enough information on both interpretations of roles of People of the Book. Maybe you can cite some more examples of point-of-view? And please refrain from disparaging other users' opinions by calling them "Hell-spawned"; you're not helping your case at all and you're violating Wikipedia:Civility. joturner 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's reduce it to raw symbolics then: Supposing a given topic of people "X", with controversial treatment of them "Y"; it is incongrous to order of flow for an examination to proceed along the lines of:

• Defenders of Y say "Z"
• Detractors of Y say "-Z"
• (Definition of Y)

IOW, it's bass-askwards of what one is accustomed to seeing (eg. a murder trial, or "Cyclical Big Bang" theory proposal, etc), wherein the relevent concept is first defined, evidentiary support listed, and finally detracting accounts.--Mike18xx 10:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in the section "Treatment of the People of the Book": "Rulings surrounding treatment of People of the Book vary with the Qur'an." doesn't make much sense to me; there is just one Qur'an, as far as I know. Furthermore, the section on treatment must be based on Islamic law, not on Qur'an. So, Mike's version is clearly preferable. In addition, the article does not cite reliable sources; I have placed an appropriate tag therefore.--Pecher 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were to believe that you could not identify a simple typo (it should have said within not with), that is not a reason to revert the page. What doesn't make sense to me is why a section on treatment of People of the Book shouldn't reference the Qur'an. You say that section should be based on Islamic law... Well, the Qur'an is, after all, the highest source of Islamic law. The version you are advocating is not NPOV within the section in question because it puts too much emphasis on the negative aspect of treatment of People of the Book, while mentioning the positive only as an afterthought. Also, if you have a problem with unreferenced facts (which I must say is a problem) you can put the unreferenced tag without reverting the page version. joturner 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that Qur'an is a source of law; however, it is not law. Sharia is expressed in rulings of Islamic jurists, which may be based on Qur'an, ahadith, or whatever. NPOV is not in saying both "positive" and "negative" things about aomething. Rather, it is in sticking to facts and not presenting the issue from one point of view.--Pecher 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Joturner's version is more neutral since it shows both relevant quotes from the Qur'an, which is the highest source of law in Islam. Pecher, your version shows the negative criticism including information about Dhimmis but leaves out other verses about tolerating Jews and Christians. I don't see any reason why the verses on tolerating people of the book should be left out but the Dhimmi part kept in. The original version and Joturner's contain both sides. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why exactly the verse 29:46 promotes tolerance. Ibn Kathir interprets it as a guidance to argue with People of the Book in the most effective manner and commence jihad if they reject the message [7]. Pecher ^Talk 20:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that verse saying anything about commencing Jihad. It says to "say that your God and ours are one" and the verse you linked by Ibn Kathir says the same thing. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"(except with such of them as do wrong;) meaning, those who turn away from the truth, turning a blind eye to clear evidence, being stubborn and arrogant. In this case you should progress from debate to combat, fighting them in such a way as to deter them from committing aggression against you." Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It says as a last choice in this case. That is hardly a call to commence Jihad and still doesn't explain why you would remove the entire section simply because a part of Ibn Kathirs tafsir says that if they don't listen or agress that you should fight them. That still does not mean the verse does not talk about tolerance especially if fighting is the last choice. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a requirement to start jihad if People of the Book do not accept a call to Islam. Not sure what surprises you here; that's a traditional interpretation among Muslim scholars and it is consistent with other Qur'anic verses, e.g. 8:39-42. This is a standard theme in Islamic law: do not commence jihad before inviting infidels to Islam and begin hostilities only if they reject your call. I do not see anything particularly tolerant in starting a war with people who decline to change their faith. It's too late now in my time zone; we can continue the discussion later, if you wish. Pecher ^Talk 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pecher

Please take the verse 8:39-42 from its context and Do not insert words not in the Text.The verse is link with verse [8:030] People whom Plotting to Fight and Kill The prophet and expelled him and Continue to do so although it has been told for them to stop this Hostility in verse [ 8:38]. And if they turn back there is No hostility by telling the Prophet That Allah is the Only protector.

[008:040] And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper

The whole verse in chapter 8:39-42 is when people start hastily on Muslims and wage WAR just like when Quorish did to the Prophet PBUH.

where as Before the Quran revealed to Muhammad PBUH ,Adolf YHWH says in his book Mein Kampf (the bible ) DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes".

Deut 20:16 is A command that Sanction to commit genocide it is a WAR CRIME Command from YHWH who is Not same God as the GOD of Quran, that we worship, he is NOT Allah.

Happy haytham 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag unwarranted

Citing Quran passages regarding peoples of the book (which is, frankly, quite necessary for this entry) does not constitute (editor) "POV".--Mike18xx 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the presentation of the section that bothers me. Instead of equally presenting both the positive and negative aspects of the treatment of People of the Book, the current version portrays the negative point-of-view as the primary one and the positive as an afterthought. That's point-of-view that leads the reader towards one interpretation. joturner 02:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See above for the discussion of the allegedly positive aspects of the Qur'an quote that you are talking about. Pecher ^Talk 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

post-Islamic relgions

I have the impression that followers of later religions based on Islam, e.g. Bahai and Druze, are not considered People of the Book. Is that correct? If so, perhaps the "Application of the Term" section should reflect this. Crust 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion. As I understant it, some consider them Muslims (Hence their acceptance into Mecca), and so not really People of the book, while others consider them Deviants and thus neither Muslims nor peolpe of the book. Err.. thats the Druze I'm talking about - Not sure about Bahai at all. Sikhs are not considered people of the Book, but given Dhimmi protections. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing mediation

There is currently an ongoing mediation involving the contents of this article. Anyone who has been involved in the recent disputes over this article's contents is requested to attend to help achieve consensus. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic law section

It states that People of the Book who live in Muslim countries are permitted to practice their religion in private. Is that universal or only particular? I've read where in some Arab countries, privately expressed worship is even forbidden.Jlujan69 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Scriptural definition

The article does not mention, but I think it's important to do so, whether and where the Koran itself defines what is meant by "People of the Book". Is there a passage where it says specifically, "Christians and Jews are the People of the Book"? Or is this simply an interpretation which has become widely accepted?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

there should be a disambiguation page for this entry

one will say the Jewish and one refer to People of the Book (Islam). That will be more neat I think. Amoruso 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

i made it clearer in the lead that there is a disambig. I also removed the Islam tag, its a general topic. FrummerThanThou 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish origin of term?

The claim is made in this article that in Judaism this terms refers to the Jewish people. I know that this is a widely used expression in non-Jewish or non-religious circles, but I have yet to find a source for it in traditional Jewish writings themselves. Thus, I have added a citation needed to that section. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No source from Jewish literature has been forthcoming. Will anyone object if I remove the section claiming that this is a Jewish term, since it is unsourced? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I have removed the section. I ask anyone who replaces it to include sources. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Who is a dhimmi?" is irrelevent for this article

Shud it be removed? Or edited and posted under a different section Smus 03:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if there was a brief intro to the meaning of the word dhimmi, as it is it doesn't make much sense. Gtadoc 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

People of the books means the Jews&christians from the Israelites alone NOT Gentiles

Going throughout The Full Context of the Quran.....Quran differentiate between the three things

• Israelites, People from the Blood line of Jacob

• People of the book (Jews, & Christians,) from blood line of Jacob (Israel) whom they received The scriptures (Torah, Psalm, and Gospels), and any people whom they received other holy Scriptures.

• Those whom called themselves (Jew and Christians) whom accepted the Jewish and Christian Faiths respectively but are not from Isrealite race.They are just called "Jews and Christians", NOT the People of the book

Because which scripture(Torah, Psalm, and Gospels), had christians received if Jesus Himself said this in Matthew 15:22-28 "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of [Israel]." .......It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the [dogs] ?

That woman have "a great faith", but that not EXEMPTED her& her young daughter from being called dogs by jesus because of their gentile GOY Race.. This is in line with

Mt 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the [dogs=gentiles], neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you

The same thing Apply for Jew unless be from the blood line race of Jacob , that Jew is a Gentile (not an Israelite).

True Jesus came to Israelites That is even Confirmed in Quran

[061:006] And when Jesus the Son of Mary said, O children of [Israel], verily I am the [Apostle of God sent unto you],

BUT Jesus stated emphaticly in the bible that [his Mission ]is not open to Gentiles By saying I was [ONLY] SENT to Israelites … Matthew 15:22-28 and in another part of the bible

People of Scriptures ( Torah, Psalm,Gosples ) are the Israelites. others are just Hangers.

Wael Faiez 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything you have looks like original research; however if you find some secondary sources you might be able to add a subsection like "racial discrimination" in the meaning of the phrase People of the Book or something like that. Gtadoc 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Definintions of Dhimmi

This user Jeff3000 seems to have problems with adding more content into the article and rvts information. Information and Definitions of Dhimmi should be properly said where i fixed content that was not appropriate and targetsing specific groups where Islam would never define, theres also more information added. This revision is most apporpiate without violating the nature towards other groups. --Asalim din Lal (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres 3 tags on the article Clean up, Citations, and Wiki Standard which i have done as well. If any user has any problems you can discuss it here or on the Wikipedia:Editor assistance. --Asalim din Lal (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

People of the Incarnation/Word

I've found that Christian leaders will often prefer to call themselves People of the Incarnation and People of the Word [8]. They will also use the term People of God. This insistance on the Incarnated Word instead of the mere Book is important in Christianity and should perhaps be noted. ADM (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of 'People of The Book'

It is quite interesting to note the focus on 'contradictions' in scripture (here and elsewhere). I would like to point out that per the definition of 'people of The Book' in the page under discussion (which does indeed include those who call themselves "Muslims"), the material following the heading 'The Quran' is itself a gross contradiction. (Remember: "Muslims" are also the people of The Book.)

To have any hope of understanding The Qur'an, one must always remember who it is addressed to: 2:1 In the name of ALLAH The Gracious The Merciful. 2:2 Alif Lam Mim 2:3 This is a perfect Book There is no doubt in it It is a Guidance for the Righteous 2:4 Who believe in the unseen and observe prayer and spend out of what WE have provided for them 2:5 And who believe in that which has been Revealed to thee (i.e. The Qur'an) and that which was Revealed before thee (i.e. Torah, Pslams, Gospels) And they have firm faith in the hereafter 2:6

As a Catholic Christian, my understanding of the term "People of the Book" is the three religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judeism) which stem from a common beginning, acknowledge worship of the same God, share a common belief in (at least most of) the same Prophets, and share common moral structures. For example, while Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God, Moslems believe him to be a Great Prophet, as Mohammed is....

Those whom believe Christians, Jews, and Moslems worship competing Gods simply misunderstand history, because while Jews & Christians had co-existed since the birth of Christ, a small group of nomads in Arabia were made aware of him 1400 years later, by divine messages from God, and delivered by the prophet Mohammed.

All of us are inter-related, and created in God's image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.166.208 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is they who follow the Guidance from their LORD and it is they who shall prosper

So we note that the Book is addressed to 'believers'. And we further reason that not all those who have inherited (a portion of) The Book -- i.e. Jews, Christians, and (yes) Muslims -- are 'believers' in the strict sense defined above. Thus, any claim that the Qur'an enjoins "Muslims" to do x, y, or z (good or bad) to 'people of The Book' is simply a misunderstanding of the Scripture. - Kabir, 17:59, 2003 March 7