Talk:People of the Book

Dr. Zakir Naik is one of the most prominent muslim scholars not just in india but in the whole world, his videos online have been watched by millions of muslims. He is the successor of another great muslim scholar Ahmed Deedat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWiZS6T_YOU

i also invite you all to browse the numerous lectures on youtube regarding "people of the book" i may have lost my cool sometimes in the discussion but this is what i was trying really hard to explain to everyone over here, i.e. to understand the quranic definition properly.

in the quran only four scriptures are mentioned by name, this is a fact. you can even pick up a quran and read and see that only the names of four are mentioned. any other scriptures or books that people talk about are opinions not facts since they are not there in the quran. the four revelations that are mentioned are taken as straight facts since they are named in the quran. this is what i have been trying all the while to explain. you can watch all the lectures on youtube in regards to "people of the book".the only thing that i would like to do now is to create a neutral intro and if you want to keep the opinions of the muslim scholars on other religions which is already there in the definition section, you can keep it as well.

the term "ahlil kitab" referes to revelations that share the same prophets (Abraham, Jesus, Moses etc.) with the quran and were sent before the quran. there are 4, including the Quran that are directly mentioned in the Quran. ReligionScholar (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Youtube is not a reliable source. Did you even read WP:reliable sources after we directed you to link, yet so many times? warrior4321 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

its a lecture that he has given, there are numerouse other online lectures that have been posted by vaious colleges and universities and institutes on youtube on different subjects. he is one of the most prominent muslim scholars not just in india but in the world. furthermore its not about the website, its the fact that there are only 4 mentioned in the quran. could you please answer the remaining points that i have made. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(ec) I take it you have not read what we have told you? Therefore, I will bring you an important part of the article that you should have taken the time to read over.

Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet. warrior4321 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

the exact opinions of zakir naik can be found in the numerous books that he has written and i will have no problem coming up with references. regardless wether the lecture was posted on youtube or another site or any other institute. if you do not want to discuss the video, i would appreciate it if you could answer the remaining points that i have made. inorder for me to create a proper neutral intro that has your points as well. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(ec) What other points do you have? Would you mind re-stating them? Two edit conflicts in a row just for this edit. Amazing. warrior4321 05:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

could you please read it. the points are already there in the paragraph above at the beginning of the topic. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you want me to address. I have shown you reliable sources that state that Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were considered People of the Book. You constantly use primary sources such as the Koran. What is there to address? You still have not read reliable sources, no original research or verifiability. Please read them. warrior4321 06:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

warrior like i said i have no problems coming up with the references from zakir naiks books what i was asking you to discuss was the fact that there are only 4 mentioned in the quran. what is mentioned in the quran is taken as fact since it is there in the quran. what is not mentioned in the quran is opinions of other scholars which differs from person to person. i am only trying to put the proper neutral intro, the statement will also be there that some muslim scholars consider other religions as well. i did not say i was going to change everything. i am only trying to achieve a compromise. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

also could you please check the reference for the statement, its a glossary of islamic terms. in the reference it says that sometimes zoroastrianism and hinuism however in the article you have put the statement that it is included as well. could you please change that statement and put in sometimes. thanks. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Than what is wrong with the current introduction? warrior4321 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(ec) I don't think anybody is disputing that the Qu'ran mentions four specific religions. However, the Qu'ran cannot rebut the claims, sourced to scholarly writings, that certain Muslims have deemed other groups to be People of the Book. Because the introduction should summarize the article, it is reasonable for this to be mentioned in the introduction as well as the details of the article. Personally, I think the current intro text does this: "The two biggest faiths that are considered people of the book are Judaism and Christianity. However, other religions such as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have been included in this list as well."^{[emphasis added]} If anything, the "however" highlights that Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are outside the traditional/orthodox definition of PotB. —C.Fred (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

there are only minor changes that i want to make in the intro. i just wanted to add the names of the four books mentioned in the quran. it was there in the intro before but was taken out, i am not sure why. apart from that maybe surah maidah in the definition section and just have quick look at the rest of the article to see if anything else needs working. thats about it. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

cfred i understand what you are saying but if something is not mentioned in the quran then its not mentioned. a muslim scholar no matter how great he is can give his opinions but he cannot change a single word in the quran. if something is not there, its not there. also the reference for the statement on zoroastrianism and hinduism says the word sometimes. therefore the statement should have the word sometimes as well. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll agree that a "sometimes" in the intro might clarify the situation. That said, remember that the English Wikipedia covers a range of topics outside Islam, and all are subject to the same guidelines. Items with sufficient reliable sources can be mentioned in articles—even, in an article related to Islam, if it's an item absent from the Qu'ran. —C.Fred (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

good we seem to be getting somewhere. i will ask the person to unlock the article just for sometime so as to make the minor changes and then the lock can go back on. and might i also add that the statement can be zoroastrianism, mayans and aztecs, buddhism, hinduism etc. since some muslim scholars include them as well as other religions. but since its an opinion its perfectly fine by me. ReligionScholar (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, the lead is just fine as is, and your sources are either primary sources (which are not admissible, please read WP:NOR) or are not reliable (please see WP:RS). How many times do we have to tell you to get familiar with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a place to fight for what you think is Truth. It's about verifiability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

jeff try to understand we are trying to reach a compromise, the word sometimes should be there because its there in the reference as well. apart from that i am only adding the names of the four scriptures mentioned in the quran. i am also adding all the other religions such as bahai, buddhism etc. because some muslim scholars have expressed opinions on them as well. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What compromise? Everyone here thinks the lead is just fine, except you. You won't even read the Wikipedia policies. You're just tyring to push your version of Truth, which is not admissible. The current wording of however already means sometimes. Maybe you should start reading some grammar books as well. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

jeff the proper statement would be "however other religions like bahai, zoroastrianism, buddhism, hinduism etc. are sometimes included in the list". thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

the only thing that i am adding is the name of the 4 scriptures that the quran mentions. that was the format in the beginning before it was changed to the current format. this is an islamic article, what is wrong in mentioning the quran? also i would like to add more religions bahai, buddhism etc as well in the however part of the intro . thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What are the "4 scriptures"? Since I don't see any scriptures mentioned elsewhere in the article, I do not support adding them to the intro. Second, looking at the article, the religions most widely consider PotB are Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. I don't think we need to add the non-PotB religions of Bahá'í and Buddhism to the intro. There's no need for a negative definition in the intro, short of widespread public belief that one of them are PotB. —C.Fred (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The 4 scriptures are the Tawrat, Zabur, Injil and the Quran. According to Islam the first three have been misinterpreted and/or changed to yield the current day Torah, Psalms and the Gospel respectively. Regards-Shahab (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to put "sometimes" for Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is conssidered to be People of the Book by several secondary sources. Please see [1] , [2] and [3] as examples of a few. warrior4321 19:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

cfred like shahab has said and how the video has shown the only 4 scriptures mentioned in the quran are the tawrat, zabur, injil and the quran. this was there in the intro before unfortunately it got removed. other religions such as zoroastrianism and hinduism are not considered people of the book in mainstream islam however there are some muslim scholars who have given their opinions which is perfectly fine. similary muslim scholars have also given opinions on bahai and buddhism, some muslim scholars have given opinions of buddha being a prophet. warrior4321 i think it would be confusing if we add sometimes for some of the religions and not for others. it would probably be better if we just say sometimes for the four religions (zoroastrianism, bahai, hinduism and buddhism) and add etc. as well since there are few others that i have been researching. i guess the most simple way to put it is that if its mentioned in the quran, its fact since the quran is considered gods word. if it is not mentioned in the quran then its an opinions since it is the word of man. but yea i feel perfectly adding the opinions of other muslim scholars on bahai, buddhism and other religions as well. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Remember that Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic law and guidelines. The Qu'ran is not an infallible source; it is subject to the same Wikipedia guidelines and restrictions as any other primary source (including the Torah, Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon, or any similar text attributed to divine sources). —C.Fred (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

yes i understand , i have also provided several references below which you can read through. i understand that the quran is the primary source but at the end of the day if its not there in the book, then i guess you have the opinions of others on the topic. like i said i am not sure why the names of the four scriptures were removed from the article since the article deals with the very same topic. ReligionScholar (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

When were they not considered People of the Book? There are no opinions being presented as there are secondary sources which back up these claims. Caliph Omar/Umar had given the Zoroastrians in the Sassanid Empire after it's collapse, the status of People of the Book. This is where they gained that status. After this, when did they ever lose it? When do they "sometimes" have it? warrior4321 06:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

warrior4321 i feel that you misunderstood me. i wanted to put back in the intro the names of the four scriptures mentioned in the quran. i have no problems with adding the opinions of other muslim rulers and scholars. the statement can read: "however muslim rulers and scholars have considered other religions such as zoroastrianism, bahai, hinduism, buddhism etc. to be included in the list as well". but i cannot say that "in the quran people of the book includes zoroastrianism as well" because its not there in the quran and no one can add or remove information from the quran. thus the intro can contain your points and my points to give a neutral article. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I oppose both changes. The names of the scriptures are details better handled in the body of the article than the introduction. (However, I do support adding them to the body of the article.) As for the change in the wording of the sentence, I don't think the extra wording is necessary. The details in the body of the article make clear the distinction between what's in the Qu'ran and what's interpreted by other scholars. —C.Fred (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

cfred surely adding the names in the intro is not going to do any harm. also the names of other religions need to be added as well. surely that will give it a neutral view. the names of the scriptures were in the intro before. so it will not harm the article in anyway. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is my proposition for a new lead.

People of the Book (Template:Lang-ar ′Ahl al-Kitāb) is a term used to designate non-muslim adherents to faiths which have a book of prayer. The two faiths which are mentioned in the Koran (specifically in the <!-- [INSERT KORAN CHAPTER] --> )as people of the book are Judaism and Christianity. However, Muslim rulers and Muslim scholars have included other religions such as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism into this list as well. <ref name="religionfacts">{{cite web|url=http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/glossary.htm|title=Glossary of Islam|work=ReligionFacts|publisher=ReligionFacts|language=English|accessdate=26 November 2009}}</ref>

Is this good? Is there anything else that needs to be included? warrior4321 06:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

that is good warrior4321, it shows the meaning of what we are trying to explain. i dont think its necessary to have the quran (its with a q, not k) chapter since there are several verses also the other religions need to be added as well well. it can read: In Islam People of the Book (Template:Lang-ar ′Ahl al-Kitāb) is a term used to designate non-muslim adherents to faiths which have a book of prayer. The two faiths which are mentioned in the quran as people of the book are Judaism and Christianity. However, Muslim rulers and Muslim scholars have suggested other religions such as Zoroastrianism, bahai, Hinduism, buddhism etc.(or among others) in this list as well. then later in the body i can add the names of the 4 sriptures mentioned in the quran. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have requested that page protection be taken off. Now, all we can do is wait. warrior4321 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Warrior4321's text changed as follows:

• Omit the chapter (Sura?) reference per ReligionScholar
• Internal capitalization of non-Muslim (consistency with rest of article)
• Convert the second mention of People of the Book to capitalized non-italic text

I do not think Baha'i or Buddhism need mentioned in the lead. I think the "such as" specifies that there are others, and it is reasonable to list Zoroastrianism and Hinduism due to geographic proximity. However, I'm willing to continue discussion on whether that's the next incremental change. —C.Fred (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

cfred its fine to mention bahai, buddhism etc. since muslim scholars have given opinions on them as well. the italics is just to emphasize the word and the rest seems alright. ReligionScholar (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/jihad.htm

http://www.quransearch.com/bassam_zawadi/food_of_people_of_book.htm

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/2527

question 21 is relevant to the article: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/People-Book.htm

http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/miscellany/the-meaning-of-the-term-islam.html

there are 100s more references and videos if you would like to learn more. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Obviously, the list can keep going and going, although this would be redundant. I hope these references are enough, if more are required, more will be dug up. warrior4321 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

yes that is perfectly fine by me. many muslim rulers and scholars have given various opinions not just about zoroastrianism but also for many other religions like bahai, hinduism, buddhism etc. if you see my discussion above i have no problems with that. i wanted to add the names of the four scriptures and also mention the opinions of muslim scholars on other religions as well. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

the islamic term "people of the book" refers only to abrahamic religions. can someone complain to the mods because we have people who are spamming the article again and again. the quran mentions by name the people of the book which is jews and christians. it does not include non-abrahamic religions. these are solid FACTS so its impossible to dispute them because the page is dealing with the islamic term. if you want to discuss other terms you will have to create your own page but dont add wrong information to the islamic page. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not nonsense. There are facts. Zoroastrians are considered to be people of the book and had to pay dhimmi. Stop removing information. warrior4321 20:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's an interpretation that People of the Book apply only to Christians and Jews. There have been various cases throughout history where certain Islamic civilizations have included other religions in the definition. For example see Hinduism and Islam in India: Caste, Religion and Society from Antiquity to Early Modern Times by S. V. Desika Char which states that Hindus were included in the definition in the Muslim civilizations in the Indian subcontinent. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i am saying again

this page only and only deals with the quranic term people of the book

if you want to talk about hinduism and other religions, you can create a seperate page.

please do not remove facts

this is not up for debate as it is clearly clearly mentioned in the quran as to who is the people of the book

you can create a seperate article if you want to discuss about other religions terms or at the very least i can create another section below called "opinions on other religions"

this is the rules of wikipedia, you have to state facts FIRST, then you can talk about the opinions of other people. what you are trying to do is change the facts of the article and replace with other people opinions. whatever is in the quran is taken as absolute facts in islam. like i said before if you want to discuss other religions i can make a seperate section for you but stop removing facts.

this page is only for dealing with the islamic term people of the book and not anybody opinions. but i can add it as a seperate section if you want.ReligionScholar (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

STOP USING CAPS! It is your personal opinion that those terms do not exist. The content is discussing about the Islamic term only. It is stating that other religions have come into that category. Stop removing content and stop vandalizing. Everything is up for debate, and everything can be discussed, the article is not yours. warrior4321 03:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, stop pushing your belief about who the People of the Book are. Wikipedia has policies such as Verifiability and no original research which state that statements must be based on secondary reliable sources. While you may believe that the People of the Book only apply to Jews and Christians, there are reliable secondary sources that state that there were and are Muslim civilizaions that don't agree with your assessment. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

pls everybody calm down and stop misunderstanding what i am trying to do.

how can you change the facts of an article. i feel that you do not understand islam yet you are making changes to the article. try to understand that the quran is the final word its not possible to debate the facts. that is why i created a seperate section for you as a compromise. but why dont you want to accept that? why are you trying to change facts?

i dont understand what is going on? ReligionScholar (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please read the no original research policy. You are applying your interpretation of a primary source (the Qu'ran) and you can't do that. You have to depend on secondary reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are you changing it? Why are putting the other religions below Islam. Leave it where it was. warrior4321 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i think i understand now, you do not understand islam. the only source in islam is the quran there is no other secondary source. the only source that is taken as facts is the quran. thats it, there is no other source. the issue is that both of you dont understand this, rather you are presenting your secondary sources and comparing it to the quran. for a person who knows islam, this view would be comical.

that is why i found it strange. it would be like going against established facts by giving other people opinions. but i guess both of you are probably not aware of the rules of islam, its an honest mistake i guess which people make who do not understand islam.

also it is not an interpretation. i put surah maidah which you deleted which shows who are the people of the book. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are hundreds, if not thousands of secondary sources on Islam. You just haven't bothered to look. Quaran is not the only source, but its the only source you know. warrior4321 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

While you may believe the Qu'ran is the only source of knowledge for Islam, that is not the way Wikipedia works. If you want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia you need to abide by Wikipedia's policies, which I have shared above, and one of them is that you can't use primary sources such as the Qu'ran. You need to use secondary sources that are reliable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

that is why i said that both of you made an honest mistake. i will try and explain to both of you. in islam the quran is viewed as the absolute final on any subject, there are no other sources that can be used against the quran. there are literally hundreds of thousands of secondary sources, article, opinions etc. but none of them, absolutely none of them can be used against the quran or as an alternative to the quran or to modify the quran. what is in the quran is the final word and is taken as absolute fact for islam.

Qur'an 5:67-69 Surah Al-Ma'idah:

Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over people without Faith. Those who believe in the Qur'an, those who follow the Jewish Scriptures, the Christians and the Sabians any who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again. It is 'you that believes that the Qu'ran is the absolute final view of the subject. Wikipedia's policies don't agree with you. See no original research which states "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.". Any interpretive claim on a primary source (i.e. the Quran) needs a secondary sources. Because of this Wikipedia policy, citing verses of the Qu'ran is not going to get you anywhere. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Qu'ran is an important source of information about the term 'People of the Book' and we certainly shouldn't ignore the definition that one of the world's largest religions attaches to a term we are writing about. It is of course also important to discuss other definitions and other means, as the Islamic definition is not the only, not even the primary, definition of "People of the Book". But that doesn't mean we discard it either. Prodego ^talk 04:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The point is that there are multiple different interpretations of a primary source like the Qu'ran, and the editor above is picking one interpretation which actually goes against what is cited in multiple other reliable secondary sources. From the no original research policy page, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

no jeff3000 you are still not getting it. you do not understand that the quran is the primary and only source for muslims. the secondary sources would be the hadiths but none of the secondary sources are considered infallible, all the hadiths can be questioned and proven to be wrong or bogus. third sources such as articles and opinions written by other people are not even read let alone taken into consideration or questioned.

but this cannot happen with the quran, it is considered absolute fact in islam. this is not "my" interpretation. it is the law of islam. i will put the article in the correct form and then prodego can decide if the compromise is good. ReligionScholar (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ReligionScholar, while the Quran is of primary importance to Muslims, different Muslims interpret it differently. Why are there so many different sects and movements within Islma; it's because there is no one interpretation. And similarly for the People of the Book interpretation, different Muslims have interpreted it differently. Shi'a clergy in Iran have applied it to Zoroastrians, and Muslim clergy in India have applied it to Hindus. So as you see there is no one interpretation, so why should your interpreation take any precedence, and that's exactly where Wikipedia's no original research policy comes in, stating that content in Wikipedia must be referenced to secondary sources from reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You don't get it ReligionScholar. It's not Protego who makes a decision, but Wikipedia's policies, and you're not reading them. I'm not going to get into an edit war now, but your edits will need to stand by Wikipedia's policies, and your edits do not. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

muslims interpret hadiths differently, never with the quran.

i have clearly followed wikipedia policy. first i put the facts then i put the opinions.

it is you who does not want to follow wikipedia policy and is trying to change facts and replacing it by your opinions. prodego will have to make a decision regarding who is following wikipedia policy.

wait for his decision. ReligionScholar (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Prodego is not the one to decide. Anyone and everyone is capable to decide the outcome, as long as they follow by the policies. You are not following Wikipedian policies by stating that the Quran is the only source for Muslims. Please read this page. warrior4321 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i am not going to explain one thing a million times. if you do not understand islam or you do not have good knowledge on islam then you should not be editing this article. wait for the concensus until then do not change the current form of the article. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have complete right to edit articles relating to Islamic articles. Please do not dictate what I can or cannot edit. Have you contacted Prodego, or are you just waiting for him to wander here eventually? I see that you have communicated with him on your talk page. That is good. Now tell me, why are you removing references? warrior4321 06:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

what references?

the only thing that i changed was the format of the article. i did not take out any references and i did not delete anything. i only placed it in the correct format. i have already contacted prodego, he is on break at the moment.

wikipedia is about concensus and showing the facts. the current format of the article is the best compromise rather than having the attitude "my way or the highway". which is a horrible attitude for wikipedia. ReligionScholar (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you noticed or not, but if you look here, you can see you have removed some references. warrior4321 12:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had to sleep, and although I asked several people to watch this page for me, it appears none of them did. I'd like to remind everyone, especially you, ReligionScholar, that editing the page before we work out what edits should and shouldn't be made isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to figure out what (if anything) needs to be done before doing it. So if you could explain exactly what you think is misrepresenting the Islamic meaning of 'People of the Book', that would be a great way to start. Prodego ^talk 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ReligionScholar, how many times do we have to point you to the relevent Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a place for a single individual like yourself to decide what is right and wrong. That's why there is the verifiability policy, and that is why you need reliable secondary sources. When Muslims themselves can't decide on an interpretation, that does not give you the right to decide. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

its not muslims who cant decide on the interpretation. surah maidah is in plain english, it can only be interpreted one way. its you who wants to show the wrong definition. ReligionScholar (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

After reading through this and looking closely at 5:69 I would like to make the following comments. The exact meaning of Al-Ma'ida can not be obtained by looking at only one English translation. If you look at the off-Wiki link you will see that it shows three slightly different translations. In fact I would suggest that the meaning of Al-Ma'ida would be best taken from the original language and not from any given English translation at all. That is not based on being able to read Arabic but on seeing over many years the number of errors made when translating from one language to another. However, we have to use the English translation and what scholars tell us the meaning is and not what we think the translation means. So currently you are looking at the sura and, based on your interpretation, saying it means only Jews, Christians and Sabians. I look at the sura and I can see two possible meanings, the first of which is the same as yours. However, it is also possible to read the sura as include any people who believe in one God, the day of judgement and do good works even if they are not Jewish, Christian or Sabian. given the references in the article I can see that Muslim scholars have also taken that particular meaning of Al-Ma'ida. It is Wikipedia's job to present that information and not to state that only one meaning is the truth. It is these human interpretations of religious works that causes the splitting into sects.

"the only source in islam is the quran there is no other secondary source. the only source that is taken as facts is the quran." and "in islam the quran is viewed as the absolute final on any subject, there are no other sources that can be used against the quran.". That is correct for how you live your life, given your interpretation of what the Qur'an means to you. However, in Wikipedia all we can do is say that the Qur'an says "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (Yusufali) and leave it up to cited works to provide the meaning. The article can no more contain your feelings as to the meaning any more than it can contain mine. If at one point or another scholars have said that it includes other people then that must be included even if it goes against your own particular beliefs.

"wikipedia is about concensus and showing the facts. the current format of the article is the best compromise rather than having the attitude "my way or the highway". which is a horrible attitude for wikipedia." What you are doing though is not Wikipedia:Consensus or Wikipedia:Compromise but is in fact saying that your way is the only way and the other editors should do as you say. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i think you are mistaken it is not how i live my life, it is the rules of the islamic religion. if the name is not mentioned in the quran it cannot be taken as fact in islam. if its mentioned it will be taken as fact. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you are mistaken ReligionScholar. The Quranic term "people of the book" has been interpreted not to mean just Abrahamic religions, but all those who received prophets and guidance. The quran only mentions a couple of book and a couple of prophets, but definitely indicated a lot more prophets, which is where the term was extended to more people, depending on how well the concepts of their religion were understood at that point in time. Therefore all people of the book, i.e. sabians deserve a mention in this article. The Bahaii, Sikh, Ahmadi etc. not so sure unless they were accorded the status as well by Muslims, however this appears to me as rather doubtful.

now the article has been changed to say that the muslims did not consider hindus to be pagans or idol worshipers and they are putting opinions of other people, not even wanting to discuss the quran. its like not looking at the phd article but looking at tabloid papers for references.

other religions have got nothing to do with abrahamic religions. in the article you have one paragraph that is talking about abrahamic religions and then in the definition you have the whole thing dedicated to hinduism. after that you have the quran references. this article is talking about the islamic term, how can the quran references come after talking about other religions??

is this some kind of joke?

how many times do i have to say that the article has to make it absolutely clear that it is only, i repeat only abrahamic religions that are considered people of the book. ReligionScholar (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Religionscholar, no one is asking Muslims to change their scope or beliefs of the religion. Secondly, please do not call editors by terms you are unaware of. Do you know for sure they are Hindus? What has been changed? The article hardly seems different than it had been a few days ago? warrior4321 02:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

you know very well that the paragraph on hinduism has been completely changed. i hate to say this but to me it appears that hindus are begging muslims to accept them. ReligionScholar (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Religionscholar, please stop removing references from the article. warrior4321 02:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i did not remove any references. why do you keep saying that?? go in the history and check where did i remove any references? i feel that you are just trying to show me as the bad guy. ReligionScholar (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am no such intention. Please understand I have nothing against you. This is the current text:

he term "People of the Book" is thus taken in classical orthodox Islam to refer to followers of monotheistic Abrahamic religions which are older than Islam. This includes all Christians, all Jews (including Karaites and Samaritans), and Sabians.<ref name="hinduism2_127">{{cite book | title = Hinduism and Islam in India: Caste, Religion, and Society from Antiquity to Early Modern Times | first = S. V. | last = Desika Char |publisher=Markus Wiener Publishers | year = 1997 | isbn = 1558761519 | pg = 127}}</ref>

This is what you are changing it to

The term "People of the Book" in Islam refers to followers of monotheistic Abrahamic religions which are older than Islam. This includes all Christians, all Jews (including Karaites and Samaritans), and Sabians (a Qur'anic term interpreted to refer to the Mandaeans).

Do you see how you are removing the references? warrior4321 02:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok that is fine so only one reference was removed accidently not like the reference"s" that you were talking about. i will put it back.

also could you explain to me why for the definition of the islamic term people of the book in an islamic article we are using a hindu reference?

do you see me putting islamic "opinions" in talks about hindu gods like shiva, vishnu etc.

the reference will remain for now but will be replaced in the future with a primary reference. we need to use references that are related to articles otherwise we might as well start using one country's opinions as references for another country. that would make no sense. ReligionScholar (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

please do not change intro. there is an opinion section that i have created you can put the opinions of other religions in there. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why shouldn't I change the lead? The version I proposed was more neutral than the current version. The lead summarizes all the sections. Please see WP:LEAD. warrior4321 04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

there is no need for opinions to be in the lead or the definition. there is a seperate section you can add information in that section. please do not change the original definition according to the quran. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it is not about opinions. There are sources that Muslim scholars have accepted Hindus as People of the Book. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

when you quote the smallest minority of muslim scholars who have an opinion of hinduism as people of the book you are not quoting quranic facts. like i said before there is a seperate section where you can put your opinions, pls do not change the original defenition. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again what you believe is fact is not important here. There are many Muslim scholars, and not even minority groups that consider your belief wrong. That is why we use secondary sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ReligionScholar, we can't just describe what a single group believes, we need to explain all the primary viewpoints, so that readers can gain a better understanding of what the term could be. So it would be remiss to restrict ourselves to a single 'true' definition. Prodego ^talk 06:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

prodego that i exactly what i am doing. i have created another section so that they can talk to their hearts content about other religions. however the only thing i ask is dont change the original definition how can you change 2+2=4. that does not make sense. then why not use opinions to change all the other articles. lets just forget about the facts. i will put it in the previous form and then you can see that it is completely neutral and shows the proper format. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i am emphasising to the other users, stop giving the opinions of muslim scholars. some muslims say things that are right and others wrong. if a muslim scholar says to kill the world that does not make it fact. it is his opinion and should go in the opinion section. i have shown surah maidah directly from the quran as fact yet jeff3000 has purposefully removed it and has put in place "opinions". ReligionScholar (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ReligionScholar, what you fail to understand is that your reading of the Qu'ran is just another opinion based on your interpretation of the Qu'ranic verse. What makes your reading more valid that actual Muslim scholars. And in fact your opinion is not a valid opinion based on Wikipedia policies because we depend on verifiable sources, and not individual users opinion. For the nth time, please spend a couple hours and read the Wikipedia policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

what interpretation are you talking about? did you not see surah maidah directly from the quran? was it not in plain english?

so then how did i interpret it? it was in clear english and it is absolute fact which should be at the top of the page in the definition section. instead you are putting hinduism in the definition section. i put this surah in the absolute beginning of the page, what were you trying to accomplish by removing that surah?

the worst part is that you have changed the meaning and are now saying that any religion that has a prayer book is considered "people of the book", which is ludicrous.

we have gone round and round, i keep saying to you not to change the definitions in islam. for some reason you want to put hinduism in the definition (which does not make any difference because hinduism is not an abrahamic religion) and now you are angry at muslims and want them to change their definition. however that is not my objective, i am here to show facts. i have taken cold hard facts straight from the quran in plain e-n-g-l-i-s-h. as usual you dont want to read surah maidah instead you accuse me of "interpreting differently" meanwhile putting your own opinions in the top of the article. learn wikipedia policy yourself or moderators can be called to see for themselves who is trying to distort the article. ReligionScholar (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

From his contributions, it's plain that ReligionScholar has a fixation on this article and has the misunderstanding that Wikipedia can be converted to a promotional organ for his/her brand of Islamic thought. It's past time for this time-wasting edit war to end, together with the unproductive courtesy and generosity shown to RS. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

hindu fanatics taking over the article is not my view of wikipedia. this is not hinduism, its an islamic article. i dont know why you are pleading with muslims to accept you. either way i am not interested in your hindu brand of islam. i am interested in the islamic brand of islam. so stop spamming the article a million times. i have already given all the reasons. there is nothing left to say except to get mods and let them know that people are vandalizing the article. the discussion has gone on long enough and all the points have been presented. stop giving me opinions instead try using facts from the quran like me. i gave surah maidah and all of a sudden you want to immediately delete it. either way the term people of the book has no effect since abrahamic religions have got nothing to do with hinduism. i have shown more than enough courtesy. its time for the mods to come in and deal with the vandalizing that has gone on long enough. ReligionScholar (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is getting tiresome. Read the Wikipedia policies.

• Because you believe something is fact does not make it fact. (no original research)
• Primary sources such as the Qu'ran can't be used to source statements. (no original research)
• You need sources from reliable secondary sources (Verifiability).

Published Muslim scholars disagree with your belief about what the Qu'ran states and published scholars take precedence over your statements. That's WIkipedia's rules. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

and many more published scholars will disagree with what you say regardless it belongs in the opinion section. not in the quranic definition. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

He is asking you to use Wikipedian policies such as reliable sources, verifibility and no original research. No scholars are going to disagree with those statements. In fact, most (if not all) scholars abide by these rules. Secondly, any information about the other religions belong in the lead. The lead summarizes the entire article, which would include the section about opinions. warrior4321 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

there was no original research. i am only looking at the quran and mentioning what is their in the quran. if you look at a phd article, will you mention what is their in the article or will you mention tabloid articles? ReligionScholar (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

some of the users contributing in the discussion page are hindus (i am assuming). jeff3000 and warrior have on all ocassions raised the issue that muslims consider hindus as friends. if i am not mistaken hindus in india hate muslims and have mistreated them for years now, i doubt any muslim would make statements that hindus are people of the book. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please assume good faith. In fact I am not a Hindu, and far reaching statements of saying that Hindus hate Muslims and vice-versa is not conducive editing, and we have reliable sources stating that Muslim scholars do indeed consider Hindus people of the book. Please do some study rather than bringing in your hateful opinion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

you are not muslim, i guess that is why you dont understand the situation in india. i suggest you should read on the babri masjid, the gujarat riots and numerous others. the list is endless. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just want to post a source regarding Hindu-Muslim relations in India: Scholars considered Hindus people of the book, (this is from a book by Hossein Nasr; see page 139); secondly somewhere in the debate you claimed that there are no two interpretations regarding verses in the Quran among Muslims, this is incorrect; for example see this).-Shahab (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

the first source that you showed is dealing with sufism. if you want to put that sort of source, you will have to clearly state that its a sufi muslim scholar. you cannot just say muslim scholar because obviously you are not going to find many muslim scholars who would consider a religion like hinduism to be people of the book. also it should be noted that the term people of the book deals only on the religion basis and has nothing to do with ethnicity. the second source that you posted is coming out blank for me but just to clarify my position. i was referring specifically to surah maidah which can pretty much only be interpreted in one way: muslims, jews, christians and sabians. i had put that reference in the beginning but it was replaced by a discussion on hinduism which i felt was not doing any justice to an article that talks about islam. which is why i created another section for other religions to get the article in the correct neutral form. ReligionScholar (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you read the source it says many of the ulema (which just translates to scholar) considered Hindus as people of the book, it doesn't say specifically Sufi Muslim scholars. The book is titled Sufi essays, no doubt but the inherent meaning of ulema is a theologian and not a Sufi scholar. The term ulema is associated with theologians and not with Sufi mystics. (Most Sufis scholars are anyway two things in one: scholars from the theological point of view, Sufis through their esoteric belief. The classic example is Imam Ghazali.) Regards -Shahab (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also see Page 132 of the same book which specifically states Muslim scholars considered Hindus as people of the book.

Not only have some of the most authoritative Muslim scholars during the Mughal period called the Hindus Ahl-e-Kitab, belonging to the chain of prophets preceding Islam and begining with Adam, but also some of the Muslim Indian commentators have considered the prophet Dhu'l-i-Kifl mentioned in the Quran to be the Buddha of Kifl (Kapilavastu) and the Fig tree of Surah 95 to be the Bodhi tree under which the Buddha recieved his illumination.-Sufi essays by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. SUNY Press, 1972. Pg 132

-Shahab (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

once again shahab you are posting the opinions of other scholars, that is fine if you want to put opinions i have nothing against that but that does not make it fact. for example there are articles and youtube videos in which christian scholars and hindu pundits are explaining how hinduism originated from christianity, does that make it fact? anyway i would like to discuss the rest in my topic above. i created this topic for another reason to talk about muslim, hindu relations in india.

jeff3000 since you are not muslim you will not know that muslims have been persecuted and marginalized for many years in india. a simple google search or youtube video search will show you the way muslims are treated in india. i have met people online who have even tried to pretend to be muslim and try to put islam down while putting other religions up. some of them try their best to show good muslim scholars as being bad because they dont want the muslim community to benefit from the person. all i am saying is that if you were muslim you would be aware of the situation that muslims face in india and the hardships they have to go through. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What does the hardships that the Muslims go through in India have in relation with this article? You cannot accuse hateful comments and accusations on individuals or groups of people. However, since you have started..Muslims have not been mistreated in India, a few events have occurred that have angered the Muslims. Yet, I ponder and ask myself, what are the Muslims doing today? The Muslims in India happily live there without causing any disruption. Yet, constant disruption from Muslim terrorists constantly attack India. These Pakistani terrorists put bombs in cities, which citizens of India from -all- religions. They kill Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and yes even -muslims-. Do not run around like a chicken with his head cut off. Do your research first. warrior4321 05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

thanks for proving my point of how muslims are treated in india as "terrorists" ReligionScholar (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Did you read it properly? I said Pakistani terrorists, not muslims from India. I also said "The Muslims in India happily live there without causing any disruption." warrior4321 05:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i do not want to discuss this issue, since a quick google search or videos online can show people how muslims are treated in india. if you feel that they are treated well, its your opinion. ReligionScholar (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

this is another standing translation for the Arabic term used in the Quran, you can find it in Muhammad Asad English translation, I suggest this to be mentioned in the main article as another translation, I will do this myself later

Done.

In this verse of the quran,(5-51) the word "friend" is not mentioned. The word (Transliteration) "Awliah", which some how was translated to "friend" really means "RULER". So, The verse says "Take ye not the jews and the christians for RULERS".

Hi, I dont know how this works but there is an important page related to Islam and Christianity that not neutral to the favour of Christianity. They misquote Qur'an and put ideas that are not part of Islam or are misleading. Here is one of the pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam

I suggest you look at other pages like these that are related to this page like: Islam and Judaism and others.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Palmer translation translates the word as "Patrons", the Pickthall translation as "Friends", the Rodwell translation as "Friends", the Yusuf Ali translation as "Friends and Protectors", the Shakir translation as "Friends", the Malik translation as "Protecting Friends", the Muhammad Muhsin Khan translation notes as "friends, protectors, helpers, etc.", and finally the Sale translation as "friends." Peter Deer (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Most translations do not necessarily pick the best contextual meaning for the rich arabic language. "friend" is sadeeq, not walyy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.169.46 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am well aware of the eloquence of Arabic, and it is my personal belief and understanding that simply "friend" is not a full or accurate translation. "Ally" or "Guardian" almost seems more accurate, but the problem here is that most of the reliable and notable third-party sources, both Muslim and Non-Muslim, seem to indicate a few specific meanings, none of which is "ruler", the closest of which to that particular one is Palmer's translation as "Patrons". Peter Deer (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

To people editing this: because this is apparently a source of contention, I am going to ask that whoever edits this includes a cited translation. (the current one used appears to be the pickthall translation) Peter Deer (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

At the article's top, I'm having difficulty understanding this:

However, the reference in the Qur'an is not to be confused with the present day versions of these Books. Rather, it is attributed to the Torah that Moses was given, the Psalms that David was given, and the Gospel that Jesus was given; that which is present today is not considered to be the original source.

Since there is no citation to justify the sentence, perhaps it should be deleted or replaced by something like: "However, Islam does not accept the validity of any of these books because subsequent translations have departed from and obscured the original texts". (That statement is, of course, applicable to any scripture presented in a heavily mutated form.) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

...or just deleted? Peter Deer (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. But, in this case, I'll respect the custom of ringing the doorbell first! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply