Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Halal

2009-07-01T05:18:01Z

Redsox70707:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I believe that the animal being slaughtered is also required to be facing Mecca.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 01:17, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Halal

2009-07-01T05:17:43Z

Redsox70707:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I believe that the animal being slaughtered is also required to be facing Mecca.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 01:17, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 01:17, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Halal

2009-07-01T05:17:05Z

Redsox70707:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I believe that the animal being slaughtered is also required to be facing Mecca.

Halal

2009-07-01T05:16:11Z

Redsox70707:

'''Halal''' is a set of [[Muslim]] laws for [[food]] handling and consumption. Products prepared by [[federal]]ly inspected [[meat]] packing plants identified with labels bearing references to “Halal” (or "'''Zabiah Halal'''") must be handled according to [[Sharia|Islamic law]] and under Islamic authority.

There are several animals whose meat cannot be Halal (such as [[pig]]s or [[dog]]s).

In order to meet Halal requirements, a suitable animal must have its throat cut with a knife and all of its blood drained, while the slaughterman invokes the Muslim [[prayer]] "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" (an [[Arabic]] phrase for "By the name of God, The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful").

==Halal rules==
'''Halal''' forbids [[Muslims]] from consuming [[pork]], [[alcohol]], [[blood]], [[meat]] dedicated to a [[false god]], animals improperly slaughtered or dead before slaughtering. <ref>http://food-management.com/ar/fm_imp_13386/</ref>

==See also==
*[[Kosher]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/A-Z_Index/index.asp USDA Index]
[[Category:United States Government Word Definitions]]
[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Talk:Kosher

2009-07-01T05:15:19Z

Redsox70707: /* Why Kosher exists */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I would focus less on the Hebrew terminology and more on what makes food kosher or not. Also, why is it important to (some) Jews to "keep Kosher", while others may not bother?

Also, the image of the non-dairy creamer seems a bit "cheesy" (no pun intended). How about a rabbi or a butcher shop? Or a picnic at a synagogue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I was going to ulpoad a picture of the major kosher symbols, but I do not have upload rights -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

As for what makes food kosher or not I made [[Kosher#Rules_of_Kashrut]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Cut and Paste ==

There's some extensive and significant cutting and pasting from [http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm]. Pasting another author's work wholesale and continually citing the source after the end of each sentence isn't acceptable in an academic paper. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:34, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I only copied a paragraph-size section from jewfaq.org/Kashrut.htm but interesting is that it is identical to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html

I then used it as a source for some of the laws. I'll try to fix the problem
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 17:44, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kosher&action=edit

The article actually uses a small amount of material from jewfaq.org/Kashrut.htm, it uses from many more diverse sources now -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==Picture==
I have found a good picture [http://www.jewfaq.org/graphics/kashrut.gif] but do not have upload rights can someone upload it for me -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 21:55, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

===Equivalence in cruelty to halal===
Why the reversion? Surely animal cruelty is the same no matter which religion is responsible for it? The halal article mentions cruelty, so why not kosher?

:Quite honestly, I think its nonsense. It's definitely less cruel than running around shooting deer. It shoudl just be removed from the halal article.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 01:13, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

==Why Kosher exists==
Either the section or the title should be changed. The laws of Kashrut exist because they are in the Torah, the only other reason that could be put is for certain medical reasons.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 01:15, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Kosher

2009-07-01T05:15:05Z

Redsox70707:

Talk:Kosher

2009-07-01T05:13:31Z

Redsox70707: /* Equivalence in cruelty to halal */

Talk:Kosher

2009-07-01T05:13:06Z

Redsox70707: /* Equivalence in cruelty to halal */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I would focus less on the Hebrew terminology and more on what makes food kosher or not. Also, why is it important to (some) Jews to "keep Kosher", while others may not bother?

Also, the image of the non-dairy creamer seems a bit "cheesy" (no pun intended). How about a rabbi or a butcher shop? Or a picnic at a synagogue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I was going to ulpoad a picture of the major kosher symbols, but I do not have upload rights -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

As for what makes food kosher or not I made [[Kosher#Rules_of_Kashrut]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Cut and Paste ==

There's some extensive and significant cutting and pasting from [http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm]. Pasting another author's work wholesale and continually citing the source after the end of each sentence isn't acceptable in an academic paper. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:34, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I only copied a paragraph-size section from jewfaq.org/Kashrut.htm but interesting is that it is identical to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html

I then used it as a source for some of the laws. I'll try to fix the problem
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 17:44, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kosher&action=edit

The article actually uses a small amount of material from jewfaq.org/Kashrut.htm, it uses from many more diverse sources now -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==Picture==
I have found a good picture [http://www.jewfaq.org/graphics/kashrut.gif] but do not have upload rights can someone upload it for me -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 21:55, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

===Equivalence in cruelty to halal===
Why the reversion? Surely animal cruelty is the same no matter which religion is responsible for it? The halal article mentions cruelty, so why not kosher?

Quite honestly, I think its nonsense. It's definitely less cruel than running around shooting deer. It shoudl just be removed from the halal article.

Halal

2009-07-01T05:08:29Z

Redsox70707: Prescription was probably a strange word

'''Halal''' is a set of [[Muslim]] laws for [[food]] handling and consumption. Products prepared by [[federal]]ly inspected [[meat]] packing plants identified with labels bearing references to “Halal” (or "'''Zabiah Halal'''") must be handled according to [[Sharia|Islamic law]] and under Islamic authority.

There are several animals whose meat cannot be Halal (such as [[pig]]s or [[dog]]s).

In order to meet Halal requirements, a suitable animal must have its throat cut with a knife and all of its blood drained, while the slaughterman invokes the Muslim [[prayer]] "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" (an [[Arabic]] phrase for "By the name of God, The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful").

Muslims claim that the Halal method is the quickest method to put an animal out of its misery; however many people have questioned whether shackling a conscious mammal (or hanging it) and then cutting the throat (not always with a sharp knife), is indeed a painless way of killing an animal.

Since this is a religious practice, the [[American Veterinary Medical Association]] (AVMA) cannot oppose this practice.

==Halal rules==
'''Halal''' forbids [[Muslims]] from consuming [[pork]], [[alcohol]], [[blood]], [[meat]] dedicated to a [[false god]], animals improperly slaughtered or dead before slaughtering. <ref>http://food-management.com/ar/fm_imp_13386/</ref>

==See also==
*[[Kosher]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/A-Z_Index/index.asp USDA Index]
[[Category:United States Government Word Definitions]]
[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Talk:Faith

2009-07-01T05:01:58Z

Redsox70707:

== Reversion ==

I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.

::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."

::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)

******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.”

Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:

3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982

So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.

The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none

In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==Unlocking Faith==

I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== Faith is NOT unique ==

To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.

However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.

Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.

I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.

:*Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. {{unsigned|Cal05000}}
:: I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive. However, I agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

(reset)The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding "faith" in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later "proofs" that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit", they never saw any "substance" of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:
*[[Abel]], [[Enoch]] and [[Noah]]
*[[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]]
*[[Joseph]] and [[Moses]]
*[[Joshua]] and [[Rahab]]
*[[Gideon]], [[Barak]], [[Samson]] and [[Jephthah]]
*[[David]]
*[[Samuel]] and the prophets

All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith.

Incidentally, the word "faith" is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: '''אמנה''' '''אמוּנה''' '''אמוּנה''' - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no "faith" within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Why would jews or muslims follow the numerous laws of their religion if they didn't have faith in God? Claiming that faith is uniquely christian is false.

== Tautology! ==

Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

== Main Page ==

Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:Romans 10:17:
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Bad, bad, bad==
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.

==Alternate version==

'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith.

Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.

==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==

I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Where has it been shown that the idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: See [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

There is only one area of science in which "faith" is required. That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on. However, this "faith" is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws. If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window. A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.

To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected. Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.

== Faith in Literature ==

I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.

[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Multiple definitions of faith ==

All: Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in. I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word "faith" to the article. Specifically:
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- "Believing without evidence," and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.

Any objections? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof. It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)

=="Faith is a uniquely Christian concept"==

So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Kierkegaard ==

I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His "leap to faith" discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]

== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==

Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Arrogance ==

That Christianity is the only religion with the concept of faith in it is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever heard. We can start by discussing the opening statement.

"Faith is a uniquely Christian concept referring to a confidence or trust in a greater good as provided by the Lord."

First, this statement claims that faith in anything is a Christian concept that was invented by the Christians. It claims that no other religion or philosophy has or have ever had any sort of faith in a greater good.

This implies that my own great personal faith in humanity as a whole is non-existant. I have no faith in humanity's capability of rational thinking, nor any faith in realizing my own and others potential to do good. Beliefs that are not rooted in any religious faith but instead by observation of humanity's history and characters that have done both terrible and wonderful things.

My own and others faith that are outside the Christian belief system are simply to be discarded as something that is irrellevant.

(as a side note please pardon any spelling mistakes, I'm Norwegian and thus realize that coming to this English speaking site might seem a bit odd, but it seems that you might need some foreign opinions on this site from time to time) Posted by: [[User:Toby|toby]]

==Rename the article==

This article seems to about [[Christian faith]], so it should be moved there. It is not really an article about [[religious faith]] in general. Moreover, an article on [[faith]] which includes the ideas of Ungtss above would be good. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Seconding this motion. 15:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Faith is a Christian concept, and "Christian faith" is a silly redundancy. It would be like saying "Christian Easter."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It's not a uniquely Christian concept, though. People can have faith in something without being religious, or they can have faith in non-Christian religions. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Even if we were to change the name (which I do not prefer), there is a problem with that name. "Christian faith" can be used to refer to ''Christianity'' as a religious system, when this article is mostly about ''Faith in Christianity'' (what it means to have a practical trust in God, and specifically Christ). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Lack of the Lord in entry ==

Faith is a concept introduced by Jesus, yet there is no reference to Him or His teachings on it in the entire first page. There are references to the Greek (which Jesus may not have used); there is reference to faith in support by chair (an example unlike ones used by Jesus); and there is a lack of emphasis on how faith is a uniquely Christian concept. For those reasons, I respectfully think this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=474174|version] is better. (Also, I think the phrase "about God" in the first sentence must be an unintentional error.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, that faith did not start with Jesus' earthly ministry, it is the same kind of faith presented in the Old Testament. It is more defined in the New, but it's not a ''new'' concept. Obviously we need to include more, but I don't think how it is right now is worse.
:About the "about God," what do you find wrong with it? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 22:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament, but hundreds in the New. Added to that is the fact the Old Testament is much longer than the New, and the straightforward conclusion is that faith is a new concept introduced by Christianity.
:: I don't understand the "about God" reference. How does faith in, say, Peter's ability to walk on water or in the healing of the Roman soldier's servant knowledge "about God"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Wait, so - at no point did the Jews have faith in God? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::To your objection: ''There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament''. I went to BibleGateway and found the word faith, faithful, or faithless a total of [http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=faith&version1=49&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no 96 times]. It is simply incorrect to say that the OT does not make a big deal about faith. Sure, it's not as much as the NT, but I already explained that. Also, remember the word "believe" is connected directly in the Greek to the word "faith." They are synonymous. "Then he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)
:::For your question: ''I don't understand the "about God" reference''. I would recommend that you listen to this lecture by Dr. Dallas Willard, entitled ''[http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/07/how-people-perish-for-lack-of-knowledge/ How People Perish for Lack of Knowledge]''. Other than that, are you talking about us (in modern day) reading those accounts and receiving knowledge of God? Or are you talking about Peter stepping out on the water and faith and having knowledge of God?
:::I'll take the Peter one... Say you are Peter, and you are in the boat. What impulse do you think would compel you to get out of that boat, when there is a fierce storm going on? I mean Peter has got to be used to this type of weather by now, so if he is having trouble, why would he have any desire to put himself in danger? But Peter knows something. (1) He has seen what Christ can do, (2) Christ is Himself outside the boat and calling him (and by the way, Jesus is not sinking, so it can't be too bad). Those two bits of ''knowledge'' on the part of Peter are able to help him overcome the uncertainty of the wind and the waves. But then when Peter takes his eyes off of Jesus (stops trusting in Him), he starts sinking. Peter then starts trusting in himself. Peter starts focusing on the uncertainties of whether he could really make it or not, rater than the certainty that there was standing on the water with him (Jesus).
:::Don't know if that made sense, but maybe :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 22:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I checked your Gateway link: the term "faith" appears only 4 times in the lengthy Old Testament, and 237 times in the brief New Testament. The Old Testament references have a different meaning from the New Testament meaning. The references to "faithful" and "faithless" have different meanings.
:::: I don't see how the faith by the soldier that his servant will be healed is knowledge "about God." The example of the chair seems, by the way, far removed from the New Testament examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''You are correct about the number on BibleGateway'''. I should have been looking closer at the meanings. However, I still maintain the Old Testament has a very clear conception of what faith is, and it does not change in the New. For example, in Exodus 4:8, God is sending Moses to Egypt, and God says this interesting statement: "If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign." Notice that God is providing a "sign" for them to believe. And if they don't trust the first "sign," then they might trust the last one. In terms of what I am talking about, that "sign" is ''knowledge about God''. It is something that God is doing to show humanity who He is.
:::::'''Faith of the soldier'''. The Centurion would have at least heard of Jesus, since Capernaum was Jesus' hometown (or at least homebase) I think. And this soldier may have even seen Jesus perform miracles before on other people. That is sufficient knowledge of what Christ (God) could do. I mean this Centurion definitely recognizes Jesus' divine authority (imho) as he calls Jesus "Lord", and says statements like, "I am not worthy for You to come under my roof," and "just say the word, and my servant will be healed." Not things you say about someone you barely know or have barely heard of... The point is that this centurion did indeed have a ''knowledge'' of Christ which caused faith in his heart.
:::::'''The chair example being far removed from scripture'''. That chair example is simply a popular way to conceptualize what saving faith is. If I just stood next to a chair and acknowledged that the chair could indeed support me, but I never sat down in the chair... is that really true faith in the chair? No. It's not faith until you not only ''acknowledge'' that the chair can hold you up, but you sit down in it. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I need to take a break now from this discussion, but so that you're not left waiting for a response, I observe that the nature of the examples of faith in the New Testament all have substantial significance relating to life or death, and none of them are trivialities like the chair example that seem to demean the significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Ok, and don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed at all to using biblical examples :-). So if that's what you want to stick to, that's fine by me. And I was planning on putting more in, but I always thought for me personally that the chair analogy was somewhat helpful. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Uniqueness==
"Some other religions have concepts that liberals pretend are similar to Christian "faith", but examining these claims invariably shows that no other religion has the same concept. "

That's clearly wrong. Judaism at the very least has a very similar meaning of ''Faith''. Islam does too as far as I recall. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Abraham ==

I was wondering if the line on Abraham in the "Biblical examples" section might give credence to those that think the other Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism and Islam) have the gift of Faith, rather than just belief.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:36, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== mundane or secular faith ==
What I mean here is a belief that certain things will happen without being in a position to explain them in detail. example: I have enough faith in my ability to build a shed for my gardening tools. example: I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. 
This may be using faith as a firmly held belief, without it being faith in a deity. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 15:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

We don't allow dilution or [[placement bias]] here. Keep the good stuff first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

"Faith" has always been a Christian concept. We're not going to allow revisionism here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:OK - I've just put back the two new sections I wrote, on faith's place among the three theological virtues, and on its uniqueness to Christianity as explained in Galatians. Hope that's all right.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:: OK, thanks. Looks good, except this comment by your edit is certainly a highly provocative one: "In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::It's not intended to be provocative, or to say that Islam has much in common with Judaism ''overall''. Just that from a point of view of faith versus law, Christianity is based on faith, whereas both Islam and Judaism are based on submitting to a code of law.

:::Obviously, remove or change it if you don't agree.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Uniquely Christian==
I'm not sure I would agree that faith is uniquely Christian, but even if that's true you may want to invest in a thesaurus. It looks kind of silly to use the same phrase that many times in an article.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 13:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:CE

2009-07-01T04:52:12Z

Redsox70707: /* Wikipedia's bias regarding this term */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes <ref>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html</ref> --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Merrium websters ==

I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis. But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)
<pre>
Main Entry:Common Era
Function:noun
Date:1846

: CHRISTIAN ERA

Main Entry:Christian era
Function:noun
Date:1657

: the period dating from the birth of Christ

Main Entry:CE
Function:abbreviation

1 chemical engineer
2 civil engineer
3 Christian Era — often punctuated; Common Era; often punctuated
4 Corps of Engineers

</pre>

== Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary? ==

There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term? ==

CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --[[User:JerriahD|JerriahD]] 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:CE

2009-07-01T04:49:18Z

Redsox70707: /* Wikipedia's bias regarding this term */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means. Dictionaries could be referenced at least. A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with "Christian Era" and "Current Era" as other meanings for "CE."

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::You did hear wrong, it is definitely Common Era, however the terms were made by Christians for Christian purposes <ref>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//0000001,001.html</ref> --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::im pretty sure that it's not censorship, they just don't want it to be a reference to christ, and christianity didn't make the Gregorian calender (i know that the pope endorsed it, but countries decided to use it on their own). and if we used a calander that had something about Muhammad in its dating system, im pretty sure that you wouldn't use the same dating names.-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::CE and BCE are commonly used in judaism. Non-christians generally would prefer not to use dates referring to Jesus, however it is the common calendar in the western world. Obviously you would very confused if I used the hebrew calendar to express years (I was born in the year 5745 would seem absurd to you) so we use CE/BCE.
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:No it's not. BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger

: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?

re: the Rabbi letter. What exactly has a response by some arbitrary Rabbi got to do with proving or disproving whether it derives from Judaism? What else shall we ask his opinion on? It makes the article somewhat of a shambles tbh. --[[User:Luke1978|Luke1978]] 13:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Merrium websters ==

I doubt this helps, and I certainly agree that the use of CE and BCE is intentional whitewashing of historical basis. But, this is what the dictionary says (Merrium Webster's 11th)
<pre>
Main Entry:Common Era
Function:noun
Date:1846

: CHRISTIAN ERA

Main Entry:Christian era
Function:noun
Date:1657

: the period dating from the birth of Christ

Main Entry:CE
Function:abbreviation

1 chemical engineer
2 civil engineer
3 Christian Era — often punctuated; Common Era; often punctuated
4 Corps of Engineers

</pre>

== Why does it matter that it wasn't in a dictionary? ==

There are lots of places where you won't find information, I'll bet that a definition of CE wasn't in your last car owners manual, and that it wasn't mentioned in your wedding vows either. If we want to list every place information is not found the articles are all going to be very very very long. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== Could we change this artice to include the origin of the term? ==

CE was christian era hundreds of hears before it became common era. It became common era when most of the people using it were no longer christians --[[User:JerriahD|JerriahD]] 10:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2009-07-01T04:38:49Z

Redsox70707: /* Photo */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
:::::As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No offence, but I don't really see what sysops editing it has to do with it; sysops can be wrong just like everyone else. The entire section is examples in the form of "Franken says X is bad, and here Franken does X". Who cares? A good 50% of the entire article is devoted to how Franken, like every other human being on the planet, is a hypocrite (and this is assuming he's being serious about everything he says, which is dubious at best). I'm all for finding controversies (like the Playboy thing) but using shaky examples of how he may or may not be lying -- sysop "approved" or not -- doesn't do the article justice and makes Conservapedia look petty and biased [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::See above the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz about who was more Jewish. Now explain that based upon the removal of political correctness. You completely ignored that in your 'reply' above and went off on a tangent. And do you really believe Jesse Ventura was the best candidate? At the end of his term his approval rating was in the teens. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::There was no tangent involved, I simply disagreed with your point and used another example as an anecdote. As for the two fighting over who was Jewish enough, I fail to see how that has connection to political correctness. I find it amusing that religion is so important in American politics, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, before I address your last question, MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven, so I doubt political correctness would be strong enough to propell a candidate to office there. No, I don't think Ventura was the best candidate, but it doesn't matter. I'm not a resident of Minnesota. However, approval ratings (especially at the end of a term) are not good indicators of anything other than their popularity. At one point, I believe Ventura's approval rating was very high, somewhere in the upper 70's or low 80's (I'm not sure, I'll try and look that up). [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Politicians fight over those things that they feel give them an advantage. Approval ratings do show how a candidate's performance was viewed by his constituents, and it is very rare to get one under 20%. Minnesota has a great deal of political correctness even if they aren't a liberal haven (although they are more liberal than the country as a whole). Ventura was known for being a WWF commentator who was good with one-liners (wrestling is huge in Minnesota) and wasn't necessarily the candidate with the best credentials. Indeed, there was a brisk business of selling T-shirts with the line 'My governor can beat up your governor' shortly after his election. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'll be answering these in the order that flows the easiest so they may not be the order they were raised. First the T-shirts, you've brought this up before, but I fail to see how this is in any related to anything. After Arnold was elected, there were several shirts marketed that read "California's governor saved the world, what has your governor done?" They were not a reflection on the performance or popularity of Arnold, they were simply a humorous T-shirt that referenced modern political events. I don't know your residency, but may I ask if you live in Minnesota? If so, then I will accept your view that he was not the best candidate, but obviously the general electorate didn't agree. If not, then I don't know how you can say that he was not the best candidate, as it was not your state and you can't really understand the differences in mentality, just as I can't understand voting mentality in New York or Alaska. Ventura was indeed a wrester known for witty one liners, but in modern politics, that's what sells voters. No longer do we want long campaign speeches, the candidates are reduced to one or two second sound bites, taken with no context and played over and over by a media with too much air time to fill. As for the approval ratings, you keep changing the point. you brought up approval ratings as an indicator of his poor performance as governor, I replied that they simply measure his popularity, not an objective view of his performance and you replied by saying that they measure what his constituents think of his performance (which is his popularity) I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with. As a final note, I don't agree that a state where the "liberal" candidate for president wins by 3% is more liberal than the rest of the country. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:"''MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven''"--What planet are you from? Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most Minnesota Republicans would be socialists in other states. "''I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough''" I don't remember this. I don't remember Coleman even acknowledge that he was Jewish for a long time. (I don't really think he's a religious Jewish person, and his wife is Christian). Norm Coleman's dad is pretty cool, though; he got caught with a street hooker in a pizza joint parking lot in St. Paul, causing Norm to release the following statement:

{{cquote|“I love my father dearly. I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help.”--Norm Coleman Jr. on his father}}
::Voting or not voting for a presidential candidate does not make one liberal or conservative. California and most (if not all) of New England voted for Reagan, does that make them Convservative states now? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Coleman is a devout very religious jew. He puts on tefillin for prayers every day, keeps strictly kosher, ect...--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::''"Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984."'' That was not because Minnesota is "so liberal." It was because Walter Mondale hailed from Minnesota and was DFL. Many of the people who vote DFL in this state would be Republicans in every other state. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, Minnesota voted against Reagan because Mondale (from Minnesota) was running against him. And yes, Minnesota has a tendency to be rather blue collar socialist in outlook. Their Republicans are not conservative in the way that much of the country would define it. Yes, Wellstone and Boschwitz did have a quarrel in the press over who was more Jewish. It wasn't the cornerstone of their campaigns, obviously, but it was rather humorous to behold. I remember discussing it with someone at work who was Jewish who felt that it was rather silly and looked poorly upon the Jewish community. He wished it would just go away. If there is a feeling that Jesse's approval rating in the teens was unjustified then I would like to hear it. The problem was apart from blasting religion, writing tell all books, and being a guest referee for Wrestlemania, he didn't really do anything.

Put whatever last comments you want to say, but I'll be removing this section in a couple of days. While it was interesting, I'm not sure we're edifying people's knowledge of Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Can we get a picture where he looks normal? In the current one he looks . . . evil, with the black and white coloring and the shadows. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 14:37, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:He's a raving liberal who delights in the death of his opponents and is making a mockery of democracy. He's a hypocrite who, after 8 years of accusing George W Bush of stealing two elections is himself using ACORN to stead an election. The photo is, if anything, far kinder than he deserves. I doubt one could find a photo where he DOESN'T look evil, without using a shot from the bomb he starred in for Hollywood. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 12:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Seriously, using ACORN to steal the elections? The supreme court of Minessota disagrees with you.

== Playboy article section ==

This should be removed, since it's unencyclopedic and the commentary within mentions that this statement was a joke anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:53, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Contradictions with Norm Coleman article ==

While doing a couple minor spelling and grammar fixes on the Norm Coleman article, I noticed a few contradictions. The Coleman page states that Coleman won the senate seat in the recent election, while the Franken page says Franken won. Which is correct?

*The Coleman article is. The Democrat machine is contesting, so is Coleman, irregularities. It is in the courts now. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Al Franken

2009-07-01T04:35:59Z

Redsox70707: /* The Jewish seat. */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
:::::As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No offence, but I don't really see what sysops editing it has to do with it; sysops can be wrong just like everyone else. The entire section is examples in the form of "Franken says X is bad, and here Franken does X". Who cares? A good 50% of the entire article is devoted to how Franken, like every other human being on the planet, is a hypocrite (and this is assuming he's being serious about everything he says, which is dubious at best). I'm all for finding controversies (like the Playboy thing) but using shaky examples of how he may or may not be lying -- sysop "approved" or not -- doesn't do the article justice and makes Conservapedia look petty and biased [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::See above the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz about who was more Jewish. Now explain that based upon the removal of political correctness. You completely ignored that in your 'reply' above and went off on a tangent. And do you really believe Jesse Ventura was the best candidate? At the end of his term his approval rating was in the teens. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::There was no tangent involved, I simply disagreed with your point and used another example as an anecdote. As for the two fighting over who was Jewish enough, I fail to see how that has connection to political correctness. I find it amusing that religion is so important in American politics, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, before I address your last question, MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven, so I doubt political correctness would be strong enough to propell a candidate to office there. No, I don't think Ventura was the best candidate, but it doesn't matter. I'm not a resident of Minnesota. However, approval ratings (especially at the end of a term) are not good indicators of anything other than their popularity. At one point, I believe Ventura's approval rating was very high, somewhere in the upper 70's or low 80's (I'm not sure, I'll try and look that up). [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Politicians fight over those things that they feel give them an advantage. Approval ratings do show how a candidate's performance was viewed by his constituents, and it is very rare to get one under 20%. Minnesota has a great deal of political correctness even if they aren't a liberal haven (although they are more liberal than the country as a whole). Ventura was known for being a WWF commentator who was good with one-liners (wrestling is huge in Minnesota) and wasn't necessarily the candidate with the best credentials. Indeed, there was a brisk business of selling T-shirts with the line 'My governor can beat up your governor' shortly after his election. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'll be answering these in the order that flows the easiest so they may not be the order they were raised. First the T-shirts, you've brought this up before, but I fail to see how this is in any related to anything. After Arnold was elected, there were several shirts marketed that read "California's governor saved the world, what has your governor done?" They were not a reflection on the performance or popularity of Arnold, they were simply a humorous T-shirt that referenced modern political events. I don't know your residency, but may I ask if you live in Minnesota? If so, then I will accept your view that he was not the best candidate, but obviously the general electorate didn't agree. If not, then I don't know how you can say that he was not the best candidate, as it was not your state and you can't really understand the differences in mentality, just as I can't understand voting mentality in New York or Alaska. Ventura was indeed a wrester known for witty one liners, but in modern politics, that's what sells voters. No longer do we want long campaign speeches, the candidates are reduced to one or two second sound bites, taken with no context and played over and over by a media with too much air time to fill. As for the approval ratings, you keep changing the point. you brought up approval ratings as an indicator of his poor performance as governor, I replied that they simply measure his popularity, not an objective view of his performance and you replied by saying that they measure what his constituents think of his performance (which is his popularity) I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with. As a final note, I don't agree that a state where the "liberal" candidate for president wins by 3% is more liberal than the rest of the country. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:"''MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven''"--What planet are you from? Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most Minnesota Republicans would be socialists in other states. "''I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough''" I don't remember this. I don't remember Coleman even acknowledge that he was Jewish for a long time. (I don't really think he's a religious Jewish person, and his wife is Christian). Norm Coleman's dad is pretty cool, though; he got caught with a street hooker in a pizza joint parking lot in St. Paul, causing Norm to release the following statement:

{{cquote|“I love my father dearly. I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help.”--Norm Coleman Jr. on his father}}
::Voting or not voting for a presidential candidate does not make one liberal or conservative. California and most (if not all) of New England voted for Reagan, does that make them Convservative states now? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Coleman is a devout very religious jew. He puts on tefillin for prayers every day, keeps strictly kosher, ect...--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::''"Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984."'' That was not because Minnesota is "so liberal." It was because Walter Mondale hailed from Minnesota and was DFL. Many of the people who vote DFL in this state would be Republicans in every other state. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, Minnesota voted against Reagan because Mondale (from Minnesota) was running against him. And yes, Minnesota has a tendency to be rather blue collar socialist in outlook. Their Republicans are not conservative in the way that much of the country would define it. Yes, Wellstone and Boschwitz did have a quarrel in the press over who was more Jewish. It wasn't the cornerstone of their campaigns, obviously, but it was rather humorous to behold. I remember discussing it with someone at work who was Jewish who felt that it was rather silly and looked poorly upon the Jewish community. He wished it would just go away. If there is a feeling that Jesse's approval rating in the teens was unjustified then I would like to hear it. The problem was apart from blasting religion, writing tell all books, and being a guest referee for Wrestlemania, he didn't really do anything.

Put whatever last comments you want to say, but I'll be removing this section in a couple of days. While it was interesting, I'm not sure we're edifying people's knowledge of Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Can we get a picture where he looks normal? In the current one he looks . . . evil, with the black and white coloring and the shadows. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 14:37, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:He's a raving liberal who delights in the death of his opponents and is making a mockery of democracy. He's a hypocrite who, after 8 years of accusing George W Bush of stealing two elections is himself using ACORN to stead an election. The photo is, if anything, far kinder than he deserves. I doubt one could find a photo where he DOESN'T look evil, without using a shot from the bomb he starred in for Hollywood. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 12:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Playboy article section ==

This should be removed, since it's unencyclopedic and the commentary within mentions that this statement was a joke anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:53, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Contradictions with Norm Coleman article ==

While doing a couple minor spelling and grammar fixes on the Norm Coleman article, I noticed a few contradictions. The Coleman page states that Coleman won the senate seat in the recent election, while the Franken page says Franken won. Which is correct?

*The Coleman article is. The Democrat machine is contesting, so is Coleman, irregularities. It is in the courts now. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Al Franken

2009-07-01T04:35:32Z

Redsox70707: /* The Jewish seat. */

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Quote==

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [http://internet-law.lawyers.com/Libel-Online.html] and could get this site in serious trouble. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sources added, libel avoided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is ''clearly'' being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TomMoore#Alleged_quotations certain people] I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

==Books and credibility==

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which '''he plagiarized''' from another source! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

== Citations ==
There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. [[User:LiberalSmack|LiberalSmack]] 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can't cite being a radical. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.
*Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately [[smears]] and [[defames]] people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
*The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
*"even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
*Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
*We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.
On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
:Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
:Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well, considering the fan magazine article that is [[Ann Coulter]] on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
==No Response==
It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Franken&diff=435324&oldid=434391] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Learning, as I ''am'' a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the [[Hamas]] paints '''too kind''' an image of them. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== wrestling stars ==

I meant a source for the state ''being known'' for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==The edits stay==
What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::My attitude? And your's doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
:::::And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking [http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm here] shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do we do OR here? I can't remember. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==This page==

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Seeing as what just happened [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them&diff=517498&oldid=517356 here,] I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB [[Talk:Al Franken#Changes|here]] shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. [[User:NateE|NateE]] 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
:::::As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No offence, but I don't really see what sysops editing it has to do with it; sysops can be wrong just like everyone else. The entire section is examples in the form of "Franken says X is bad, and here Franken does X". Who cares? A good 50% of the entire article is devoted to how Franken, like every other human being on the planet, is a hypocrite (and this is assuming he's being serious about everything he says, which is dubious at best). I'm all for finding controversies (like the Playboy thing) but using shaky examples of how he may or may not be lying -- sysop "approved" or not -- doesn't do the article justice and makes Conservapedia look petty and biased [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Jewish seat. ==

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?

 2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
 2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
 1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. [[User:QuickFixer|QuickFixer]] 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::See above the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz about who was more Jewish. Now explain that based upon the removal of political correctness. You completely ignored that in your 'reply' above and went off on a tangent. And do you really believe Jesse Ventura was the best candidate? At the end of his term his approval rating was in the teens. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::There was no tangent involved, I simply disagreed with your point and used another example as an anecdote. As for the two fighting over who was Jewish enough, I fail to see how that has connection to political correctness. I find it amusing that religion is so important in American politics, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, before I address your last question, MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven, so I doubt political correctness would be strong enough to propell a candidate to office there. No, I don't think Ventura was the best candidate, but it doesn't matter. I'm not a resident of Minnesota. However, approval ratings (especially at the end of a term) are not good indicators of anything other than their popularity. At one point, I believe Ventura's approval rating was very high, somewhere in the upper 70's or low 80's (I'm not sure, I'll try and look that up). [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Politicians fight over those things that they feel give them an advantage. Approval ratings do show how a candidate's performance was viewed by his constituents, and it is very rare to get one under 20%. Minnesota has a great deal of political correctness even if they aren't a liberal haven (although they are more liberal than the country as a whole). Ventura was known for being a WWF commentator who was good with one-liners (wrestling is huge in Minnesota) and wasn't necessarily the candidate with the best credentials. Indeed, there was a brisk business of selling T-shirts with the line 'My governor can beat up your governor' shortly after his election. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'll be answering these in the order that flows the easiest so they may not be the order they were raised. First the T-shirts, you've brought this up before, but I fail to see how this is in any related to anything. After Arnold was elected, there were several shirts marketed that read "California's governor saved the world, what has your governor done?" They were not a reflection on the performance or popularity of Arnold, they were simply a humorous T-shirt that referenced modern political events. I don't know your residency, but may I ask if you live in Minnesota? If so, then I will accept your view that he was not the best candidate, but obviously the general electorate didn't agree. If not, then I don't know how you can say that he was not the best candidate, as it was not your state and you can't really understand the differences in mentality, just as I can't understand voting mentality in New York or Alaska. Ventura was indeed a wrester known for witty one liners, but in modern politics, that's what sells voters. No longer do we want long campaign speeches, the candidates are reduced to one or two second sound bites, taken with no context and played over and over by a media with too much air time to fill. As for the approval ratings, you keep changing the point. you brought up approval ratings as an indicator of his poor performance as governor, I replied that they simply measure his popularity, not an objective view of his performance and you replied by saying that they measure what his constituents think of his performance (which is his popularity) I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with. As a final note, I don't agree that a state where the "liberal" candidate for president wins by 3% is more liberal than the rest of the country. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:"''MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven''"--What planet are you from? Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most Minnesota Republicans would be socialists in other states. "''I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough''" I don't remember this. I don't remember Coleman even acknowledge that he was Jewish for a long time. (I don't really think he's a religious Jewish person, and his wife is Christian). Norm Coleman's dad is pretty cool, though; he got caught with a street hooker in a pizza joint parking lot in St. Paul, causing Norm to release the following statement:

{{cquote|“I love my father dearly. I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help.”--Norm Coleman Jr. on his father}}
::Voting or not voting for a presidential candidate does not make one liberal or conservative. California and most (if not all) of New England voted for Reagan, does that make them Convservative states now? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Coleman is a devout very religious jew. He puts on tefillin for prayers every day, keeps strictly kosher, ect...

::''"Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984."'' That was not because Minnesota is "so liberal." It was because Walter Mondale hailed from Minnesota and was DFL. Many of the people who vote DFL in this state would be Republicans in every other state. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, Minnesota voted against Reagan because Mondale (from Minnesota) was running against him. And yes, Minnesota has a tendency to be rather blue collar socialist in outlook. Their Republicans are not conservative in the way that much of the country would define it. Yes, Wellstone and Boschwitz did have a quarrel in the press over who was more Jewish. It wasn't the cornerstone of their campaigns, obviously, but it was rather humorous to behold. I remember discussing it with someone at work who was Jewish who felt that it was rather silly and looked poorly upon the Jewish community. He wished it would just go away. If there is a feeling that Jesse's approval rating in the teens was unjustified then I would like to hear it. The problem was apart from blasting religion, writing tell all books, and being a guest referee for Wrestlemania, he didn't really do anything.

Put whatever last comments you want to say, but I'll be removing this section in a couple of days. While it was interesting, I'm not sure we're edifying people's knowledge of Franken. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Can we get a picture where he looks normal? In the current one he looks . . . evil, with the black and white coloring and the shadows. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 14:37, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:He's a raving liberal who delights in the death of his opponents and is making a mockery of democracy. He's a hypocrite who, after 8 years of accusing George W Bush of stealing two elections is himself using ACORN to stead an election. The photo is, if anything, far kinder than he deserves. I doubt one could find a photo where he DOESN'T look evil, without using a shot from the bomb he starred in for Hollywood. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 12:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Playboy article section ==

This should be removed, since it's unencyclopedic and the commentary within mentions that this statement was a joke anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:53, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Contradictions with Norm Coleman article ==

While doing a couple minor spelling and grammar fixes on the Norm Coleman article, I noticed a few contradictions. The Coleman page states that Coleman won the senate seat in the recent election, while the Franken page says Franken won. Which is correct?

*The Coleman article is. The Democrat machine is contesting, so is Coleman, irregularities. It is in the courts now. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-01T04:19:24Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

[/archive7]

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-01T04:19:04Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

[/archive7]

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Judaism

2009-07-01T04:12:33Z

Redsox70707: /* The Twelve Tribes of Israel */

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]), in which the [[Mosaic Law]] is found, are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings. The works of the prophets are grouped under Nevi'im, and the other writings are known as Ketuvim. The first letters of each part combined were used to create the name of the full Hebrew Bible: the Tanakh, which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. There are four large branches. They are from the most traditional to the least:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*[[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]]
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]
*[[Reconstructionist|Reconstruction]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the west, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the first and second night of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year. A day on the hebrew calendar lasts from sundown to sundown. For this reason holidays begin on sundown.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants, lineage, came [[King David]] ''“your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever”'' 2 Samuel 7:16, '' Acts 13:34. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''[[Aggadah]]'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==Jewish Humor==
Jewish humor is first of all not jokes about Jews made by non-Jews, nor is it jokes about Jews made to ridicule, making parody of characteristics considered Jewish traits. Jewish humor is humor made by Jews sometimes using material from the Jewish life and experience to highlight Jewish fallibilities to show them either as means of overcoming or defense, or to show them as universals shared by all peoples. Jewish humor is appreciated by both Jews and non Jews, thereby showing the truth of the commonality of Jews with all peoples. Because Jewish humor often is gently self-deprecating or wiliing to expose the foibles of Jews themselves, which Jews understand intuitivly, Jewish comedians succeed, without raising rancor, in finding the humorous situation of other nationalites, without raising rancor. An example is the Sid Caesar's "German General" (below)

ex. 1. A man comes into the office of the Rabbi, while his wife waits her turn outside. Sitting next to the Rabbi is the "rebbinitzer"- his wife. The man comes in seats himself, and begins his tirade against his wife. She doesn't cook well, always complains, talks too loud, hours on the phone with the girls, on and on.
The rabbi listens carefully, and finally, slams his palm on the desk and says "You're right!". The man goes out and in comes the wife, seats herself, and then begins on her husband, never at home, when he comes, takes off his shoes and his shirt and leaves them on the floor, burps in public, on and on. The Rabbi, listens, gets illuminated, slams his palm on the table and says, "You're right!" The wife leaves, and the rabbinitzer explodes and turning to him says, How can they both be right, what kind of a counsel is that to say, Are you crazy? Rabbi, squints at her, slams his palm on the table and says, "You're right!"

ex. 2. Moses Mendelssohn was the father of reform Judaism and a favorite at the court of Fredrick the Second. Fredrick would often make fun of the helpless Moses before the nobles of the Court. This day, Fredrick wrote a note which said "Moses Mendelssohn is the First Ass of the Kingdom", and passed it around for all to see and snicker at. When it got to Moses, he read it, went into ecstasy with delight, holding it to his breast, finally saying to Fredrick, "O my lord, I have been so touched and honored by your note mentioning my name and I humbly ask of you that you sign it for my continual reverence." Fredrick nodded, signed it handing it back to Moses, who immediately rose from his knees, held out the note, and read it in loud and emotion packed tone, "Moses Mendelssohn is the First Ass of the Kingdom, Fredrick the Second."

ex. 3. The visual comedy of Jewish American comedian Sid Caesar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybqVRYCXFPM , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0SG4YhiuYU

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]

Judaism

2009-07-01T04:11:48Z

Redsox70707: /* Calendar */

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]), in which the [[Mosaic Law]] is found, are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings. The works of the prophets are grouped under Nevi'im, and the other writings are known as Ketuvim. The first letters of each part combined were used to create the name of the full Hebrew Bible: the Tanakh, which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. There are four large branches. They are from the most traditional to the least:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*[[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]]
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]
*[[Reconstructionist|Reconstruction]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the west, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the first and second night of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year. A day on the hebrew calendar lasts from sundown to sundown. For this reason holidays begin on sundown.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants, lineage, came [[King David]] ''“your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever”'' 2 Samuel 7:16, as did [[Jesus Christ]] '' 'The promised Messiah of Israel would come from the “house of David.”' '' Acts 13:34. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''[[Aggadah]]'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==Jewish Humor==
Jewish humor is first of all not jokes about Jews made by non-Jews, nor is it jokes about Jews made to ridicule, making parody of characteristics considered Jewish traits. Jewish humor is humor made by Jews sometimes using material from the Jewish life and experience to highlight Jewish fallibilities to show them either as means of overcoming or defense, or to show them as universals shared by all peoples. Jewish humor is appreciated by both Jews and non Jews, thereby showing the truth of the commonality of Jews with all peoples. Because Jewish humor often is gently self-deprecating or wiliing to expose the foibles of Jews themselves, which Jews understand intuitivly, Jewish comedians succeed, without raising rancor, in finding the humorous situation of other nationalites, without raising rancor. An example is the Sid Caesar's "German General" (below)

ex. 1. A man comes into the office of the Rabbi, while his wife waits her turn outside. Sitting next to the Rabbi is the "rebbinitzer"- his wife. The man comes in seats himself, and begins his tirade against his wife. She doesn't cook well, always complains, talks too loud, hours on the phone with the girls, on and on.
The rabbi listens carefully, and finally, slams his palm on the desk and says "You're right!". The man goes out and in comes the wife, seats herself, and then begins on her husband, never at home, when he comes, takes off his shoes and his shirt and leaves them on the floor, burps in public, on and on. The Rabbi, listens, gets illuminated, slams his palm on the table and says, "You're right!" The wife leaves, and the rabbinitzer explodes and turning to him says, How can they both be right, what kind of a counsel is that to say, Are you crazy? Rabbi, squints at her, slams his palm on the table and says, "You're right!"

ex. 2. Moses Mendelssohn was the father of reform Judaism and a favorite at the court of Fredrick the Second. Fredrick would often make fun of the helpless Moses before the nobles of the Court. This day, Fredrick wrote a note which said "Moses Mendelssohn is the First Ass of the Kingdom", and passed it around for all to see and snicker at. When it got to Moses, he read it, went into ecstasy with delight, holding it to his breast, finally saying to Fredrick, "O my lord, I have been so touched and honored by your note mentioning my name and I humbly ask of you that you sign it for my continual reverence." Fredrick nodded, signed it handing it back to Moses, who immediately rose from his knees, held out the note, and read it in loud and emotion packed tone, "Moses Mendelssohn is the First Ass of the Kingdom, Fredrick the Second."

ex. 3. The visual comedy of Jewish American comedian Sid Caesar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybqVRYCXFPM , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0SG4YhiuYU

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]

Judaism

2009-07-01T04:09:52Z

Redsox70707: /* Main Holidays */

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]), in which the [[Mosaic Law]] is found, are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings. The works of the prophets are grouped under Nevi'im, and the other writings are known as Ketuvim. The first letters of each part combined were used to create the name of the full Hebrew Bible: the Tanakh, which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. There are four large branches. They are from the most traditional to the least:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*[[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]]
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]
*[[Reconstructionist|Reconstruction]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the west, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the first and second night of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants, lineage, came [[King David]] ''“your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever”'' 2 Samuel 7:16, as did [[Jesus Christ]] '' 'The promised Messiah of Israel would come from the “house of David.”' '' Acts 13:34. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''[[Aggadah]]'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==Jewish Humor==
Jewish humor is first of all not jokes about Jews made by non-Jews, nor is it jokes about Jews made to ridicule, making parody of characteristics considered Jewish traits. Jewish humor is humor made by Jews sometimes using material from the Jewish life and experience to highlight Jewish fallibilities to show them either as means of overcoming or defense, or to show them as universals shared by all peoples. Jewish humor is appreciated by both Jews and non Jews, thereby showing the truth of the commonality of Jews with all peoples. Because Jewish humor often is gently self-deprecating or wiliing to expose the foibles of Jews themselves, which Jews understand intuitivly, Jewish comedians succeed, without raising rancor, in finding the humorous situation of other nationalites, without raising rancor. An example is the Sid Caesar's "German General" (below)

ex. 1. A man comes into the office of the Rabbi, while his wife waits her turn outside. Sitting next to the Rabbi is the "rebbinitzer"- his wife. The man comes in seats himself, and begins his tirade against his wife. She doesn't cook well, always complains, talks too loud, hours on the phone with the girls, on and on.
The rabbi listens carefully, and finally, slams his palm on the desk and says "You're right!". The man goes out and in comes the wife, seats herself, and then begins on her husband, never at home, when he comes, takes off his shoes and his shirt and leaves them on the floor, burps in public, on and on. The Rabbi, listens, gets illuminated, slams his palm on the table and says, "You're right!" The wife leaves, and the rabbinitzer explodes and turning to him says, How can they both be right, what kind of a counsel is that to say, Are you crazy? Rabbi, squints at her, slams his palm on the table and says, "You're right!"

ex. 2. Moses Mendelssohn was the father of reform Judaism and a favorite at the court of Fredrick the Second. Fredrick would often make fun of the helpless Moses before the nobles of the Court. This day, Fredrick wrote a note which said "Moses Mendelssohn is the First Ass of the Kingdom", and passed it around for all to see and snicker at. When it got to Moses, he read it, went into ecstasy with delight, holding it to his breast, finally saying to Fredrick, "O my lord, I have been so touched and honored by your note mentioning my name and I humbly ask of you that you sign it for my continual reverence." Fredrick nodded, signed it handing it back to Moses, who immediately rose from his knees, held out the note, and read it in loud and emotion packed tone, "Moses Mendelssohn is the First Ass of the Kingdom, Fredrick the Second."

ex. 3. The visual comedy of Jewish American comedian Sid Caesar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybqVRYCXFPM , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0SG4YhiuYU

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-01T04:06:30Z

Redsox70707: /* Article in disrepair */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

[/archive7]

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-01T04:06:15Z

Redsox70707: /* Article in disrepair */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

[/archive7]

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.

Talk:Had Gadya

2009-06-24T03:02:21Z

Redsox70707: Created page with '==Had Gadya== Throughout this article Had Gadya should be spelled Chad Gadya. The first letter Chet is pronounced with the guttural flem, which is usually represented with a CH.'

==Had Gadya==
Throughout this article Had Gadya should be spelled Chad Gadya. The first letter Chet is pronounced with the guttural flem, which is usually represented with a CH.

Talk:Islam

2009-06-24T02:55:28Z

Redsox70707: /* Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2009-06-24T02:49:56Z

Redsox70707: /* Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2009-06-24T02:34:17Z

Redsox70707: /* Consistency of Koran/Quran */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2009-06-24T02:32:54Z

Redsox70707: /* Consistency of Koran/Quran */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Debate:What is the Sabbath day?

2009-06-22T20:19:55Z

Redsox70707:

{{debate}}

This is a topic that interests me. I identify as a Seventh-Day Adventist, although I only hold loosely to some of the teachings of the church. I personally believe the Sabbath day to be Saturday, the 7th day of the week in the traditional calendar, and the day of the Jewish Sabbath. I was a bit surprised to find that Conservapedia's article on the [[Sabbath]] asserted that the "date given by Moses has been lost". (I'd correct that, but I'm a bit wary about introducing my own biases, which may not be quite what the project wants.) In either case, I figured this was a good topic for debate. What day is the Sabbath day, or does it even matter in the life of the Christian? --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Genesis 2:2 "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." In the biblical sense, Sabbath has much more meaning than just a day of the week. There were also 7 year sabbaths and 50 year sabbaths. I'm no expert at this, but I believe these were also referred to as the Year of Jubilee. Christians meet on Sunday (first day of the week) because that is the day they believe that Christ rose from the grave. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sabbath day is from Friday at sundown until Saturday at sundown, local time. The Jews are quite meticulous about ensuring their law is transmitted from one generation to the next without error, and one law commands the sabbath to be remembered. As far as Christians are concerned, Paul said, (Col.2:16) "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The Sabbath Day depends on what calander you're using--solar or lunar. Our comprehension of what day is which is thrown off by the fact that we have an extra day every 4 years to keep the calender sensical, which might also affect the Sabbath. It seems to be more important to observe rest and the power of God every seven days than to quibble about which of the seven it is. I seriously doubt God is going to scold you for not being a historical mathmatician and damning you for observing on the wrong day.

Really the Sabbath Day is any day that the Lord has deemed as Holy. The original holy day was the day that God rested. Jews believe this to be Saturday while Christians like to think of it as Sunday. It could be either it's more likely to be Saturday since the Christian calender has been altered so many times over the centries.[[User: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

We should note that none of the calendar changes over the centuries has ever altered the weekly cycle.[[User:djconklin|djconklin]] 8:04, 11 May 2007(CST)

I agree with the above--that the Sabbath was initially instituted as the seventh day of the week as recorded in the Old Testament, and that it was Saturday. Now whether it remains to be Saturday or has been changed to Sunday is up for debate. It is also up for debate whether the Sabbath should still be kept. First of all, I think that it is more important to keep the spirit of the law over the letter; in other words, I think that it is more important to demonstrate love to all people than to keep all the laws. If one keeps all the laws, they keep them for themselves in a sense--either demonstrating, or attesting thier righteousness. Unless ofcourse it is the laws that pertain to the gracious treatment of others such as ''loving thy neighbor, not commiting adultery, not stealing, nor lying, nor falsely testifying''. In other words, ''"treating others the way that you would like them to treat you"'' These are all good commands to keep. However, I believe that it is impossible to attain a righteousness without love which would properly prepare one for heaven. This is attested in 1 Corinthians when the Apostle Paul basically says that one could perform all kinds of various acts of ''love and kindness'' to others that would be basically useless or worthless if not done in ''the spirit of love''. Now concerning the fourth commandment--the Sabbath. It began as historical day of rest and as a commandment from God or Yahweh to Moses--the Leader of the Israelites around 1500 BC, to be observed by everybody. I believe that "This day was affirmed in the New Testament while Jesus was in the Earth after his crucifixion, "[the disciples] rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23.56). The fact that the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament in the context of Jesus' death and resurrection not only affirms the Sabbath as still being efficacious for believers, but it also affirms the day as the Seventh since it says "according to the commandment", namely the fourth commandment-- "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exod. 20.11. Now concerning my own thoughts, I think that it is good to keep the Sabbath for several reasons. First of all, it is good to keep it because of the commandment, so it must be good. Secondly, I think that our bodies, minds, and spirits need to have a break every week from the stresses and strains that we go through. We need time to heal and to rebuild. More later. Feel free to respond. [Petrarcah]--[[User:Petrarcah|Petrarcah]] 13:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

My view is that Christians have leeway to do whatever they want on the Sabbath. Colossians 2:16-17 says: Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Paul isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath in Col. 2:16-17. The passage refers to outsiders (''i.e.'', non-Christians) judging the believers for their eating and drinking on (''en merei'') the feast days, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths. For more details see http://www.666man.net/Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/colintro.html. [[User:djconklin|djconklin]] 8:04, 11 May 2007 (CST)

As djconklin states the reference in Col 2:16 is to ceremonial sabbaths that were celebrated according to the handwritten law of Moses as told to him by God as a symbol of future events. I'm amazed so many misquote this, having apparently not read the verse in it's context to the rest of the chapter. All through the Bible we are exhorted to keep the 7th day holy since creation. Calendar changes are another red herring; there has always been 7 days in a week since creation. I would assume that God would see that something so important would remain intact. Jesus kept the Sabnbath on the seventh day of the week. If His dying had any effect on the Moral Law wouldn't He have mentioned it? Celebrating Sunday as the day of rest because of His resurrection doesn't fit either. Baptism was given to us as a symbol of his death, burial, and resurrection. The Roman Catholic church claims the authority to change times and laws by sanctifying Sunday. It has no Biblical authority, nor from God either, to change a command spoken by God, written with His own finger and shouted from the mountaintop at Sinai.The Bible warns what will happen to those who teach as doctrine the traditions of men as well. It behooves us to obey the Word and keep the seventh day Sabbath.--InHIsImage

I personally celebrate it Friday sundown until Saturday Sundown. --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T20:04:53Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Judaism

2009-06-22T20:04:20Z

Redsox70707: /* = Life Cycle Section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.

I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should be merged with [[Jews]] and [[Jew]].--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism ==

It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.

Since [[Abraham]] is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.

I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy

:: Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au March 31, 2007

:::Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wrong. While marriage outside the faith is prohibited, a child born of a Jewish mother is fully Jewish. Converts from certain nations (Moabites, Egyptians, &c.) could not marry full Jews (“enter into the assembly of the LORD”), only other converts—up to a certain number of generations.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --[[User:M|M]]

:But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Jesus is of historical importance to Jews because he founded Christianity. That said, I’m editing the “Jewish views on Jesus” for relevancy & accuracy.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. [[User:Isiah24]]

I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: myles325@yahoo.com.au

:While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au

:Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
:So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unexpected deletions ==

I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Preposterous examples of stupidity==

That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Should there be something telling how the Jews will be converted to Christianity in the end, according to Revelations. [[User:LilGeorgiaPeach81|Mellie]] 15:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a disgustingly selfish and misguided view. So what if someone doesn't agree with what we think? We should learn to accept other people for who they are.

== some more added ==

I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.

== Jews for Jesus? ==

I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish.
There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--[[User:M|M]] 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Nation'==
*''Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt''
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--[[User:M|M]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestions==
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Menorah==
Why was the menorah replaced witht the Star of David? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== G-d ==

Could someone change the 'G-d' in the last paragraph to 'God'? It is silly to use God's name five times in the page, then wrap it up with a 'G-d'. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 00:23, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:Then G-d should be written as such throughout the article. It is a Jewish Article. [[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::But it's a Christian wiki and country.

I am shocked and appalled by the use of the word 'yahweh' in the quotes from the bible. The article is about judaism and yahweh is a mistranslation of YHWH the letters of the true name of g-d. Any passage attached to judaism should have lord, g-d, adonai or etc instead of 'yahweh' ([[User:Shieldofdavid|Shieldofdavid]] 05:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT))

Shield of David, I'm the offender. Sometines it's hard to know what to do as we're coming, I think, from different frames of reference. In any case, in any future postings here, I'll refrain from writing "Yahweh" in an article itself. I did think of writing an article on Yahweh, and may still do so. But of course this would be a technical, so to speak, article and not a random use of the Name when it need not be used. But here, on this talk page, I'll just note - YHVH appearing in the Bible is from the root of the verb "to be" and that is why the Greek version translated it by "'o ontos" probably best translated "The One who is being" or "the being One". which is why the most common English translation has it "I am who I am" * who sent Moses on his mission. But almost certainly the vowels, which are not in the orginal text, as is the case with Biblical Hebrew, puts the verb in the Hiph'il (those are the vowels that appear in "Yahweh") which is causative, and since the form is causative without reference to time (past, present or future), It probably meant (clumsy in the English but not in the Hebrew) in the context, "I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being", It is I who am sending you, Moses, so don't be afraid!. Something like that. that's a mighty powerful God![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

*Linguistic note - Though the divine name throughout is YHVH which is in the 3rd person singular = "''He'' has, is, shall...", a key passage is Deuteronomy 3 :14 which is in the 1st person singular = " ''I'' have, shall...". As I noted, the vowels are not original to the text and the vowels that appear in the masoretic text put it into the Pa'al form making it imply (but not requiring it to be) a non causative sense; and so the words can bear the meaning "I will be whom (or what) I will be..." But knowing that the vowels are a centuries later addition (and interpretation) leave us open to consider the equal possibility, as I have noted, that the form is not Pa"al ("'eh"- 1st syllable) but Hiph'il ("'ah" - 1st syllable), making it causative, rendering the meaning, in this case in Deut. 3:14 first person - ''I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)''

==Ethnicities===
I wish to expand of these but it is locked.
[[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Criticism Section ==

What do people think? The main goal would be to acknowledge that Jews are not saved without appearing anti-semitic. We could also mention the general permissiveness of Judaism, the higher rates of secularization, disputing that Jesus was the messiah, circumcision, Purim, etc. This would not be a section to allege stupid conspiracy theories ("Jews control such and such") or to criticize Israel.

:Firstly, I would not call it criticism. We have to tread very lightly and still be respectful and sensitive. Judaism is not viewed in any way as inferior on this site merely because it is not Christianity, and there is a deep bond and shared history between the two. I would put whatever information you feel is noteworthy under different sections as appropriate without bunching it together or making value judgements. After that we can see how it looks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that Learn together's approach is a very good one[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 14:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Truly unintended slights ==

Here I see that people of good will are bumping into other people of good will. On one hand, we see that Jews can be offended by the Christians using the Divine Name in an article on Judaism and elsewhere, seemingly oblivious (but meaning no harm at all) to the fact that to Jews the Name is too holy to pronounce ''meforash'' = so explicity. Wasn't it only to actually be said only once a year, and that in the Holy Temple, and that only by the High Priest? On the other hand, we see that reference to God, to the Lord, can be so "casual" as to be written in small letters - g-d, lord, adonai, which seems to Christians strange and somehow demeaning of Him. And yet, Jews would not have intended it demeaningly at all but somehow it happens due to the influence probably/possibly of the Hebrew Language, as well as all semitic languages, namely, these languages have no differing sizes letters, no "Capital letters". All this requires a great deal of understanding of one another.

== "They do, however, respect him and consider Jesus to be an ethical person." ==

REALLY?! I do? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 04:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I pity the poor administrators and editors that have to deal with this question! This is a a hard one. There are so many Jewish views about Jesus, as well as no view at all. There is no uniformity on this question as well as among Jews generally. There is more of a tendency among Reformed Jews, due to the development of Reform Judaism, and there is more of an openness, to embrace Jesus as "one of us", as an ethical teacher, and even a prophetic voice within Judaism. On the other hand, there is more of a rejection of even these views among the orthodox from various streams, even to the avoidance of uttering the name of Jesus, sometimes referring to Jesus as "the man". This is not due, I think, to the religious referencs of Orthodoxy. but due to the various histories of the orthodox dispersions and histories. Yet I remember Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University, a teacher of Talmud, Greek Classics, and New Testament studies, and an Orthodox Jew himself, saying, in his lectures with many religious Jews present, that Jesus was more than a man, and his being so against the critical liberal Christian scholars who throw out good history in their attempt of "reducing" Jesus. So there is no one single Jewish position about Jesus. Another factor, influencing secular Jews as well as the religious, is the viewing of Jesus, or rather the inability of view Jesus, as He really is, because of the Jewish experience amidst Christendom. of so much that is the total opposite of the goodness of the Lord. Yet, even here, there is also much good of sincere and holy followers of Jesus. The professor I mentioned above, Dr, Flusser, in his native Germany before the holocaust, had the good fortune, as he would tell, of meeting Mennonite Christians would showed him the difference between "Christians" and true followers of Jesus. I think that in the article, it is best to not include the Jewish attitude to Jesus. Only my opinion, not graven in stone.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 15:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

: I edited the article; is this closer to what you’d think correct?[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I earlier put in links to http://www.JewsforJudaism and http://www.MessiahTruth.com to try to show the Jewish view of Jesus, but one of the admins didn't like these links, if anything is going to be said about the Jewish view of Jesus wouldn't those sites be essential ? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:Deborah, I took a look at/through the MessianicTruth site. I think that it is a decidedly "Jewish view of Missionary to the Jews" site, rather than a "Jewish view of Jesus" site. The view of Jesus that does emerge is more of a counter polemic with very little real view of Jesus coming through. In an expanded Judaism article, the sites you mention probably could go under a subsection or sub-subsection of this article under the title of "Jewish views toward Christian Missionary work" or "Jewish views toward Messianic Jews" but it may be better under an article itself with one of these titles.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 03:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Towafalaa ==

Is this spelled wrong? I get 0 hits on Yahoo and Google. The "11th of September" reference seems suspicious as well. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nobody can help me out? I'm going to remove it to be on the safe side. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Correct to delete. Justy some anti-Semite parody (Tower Fall) Tawafalla, Sept 11 9am-noon --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::No, this is an actual holiday, it's not commonly translated from Hebrew--[[User:AshleyF|AshleyF]] 20:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Jpatt is right, and you are a parodist. Jewish holidays don't follow the gregorian calendar, do they? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
No, Jewish Holidays follow the Hebrew Calendar (for example Yom Kippur will happen in October some years, and September other years, however it always falls on the 10th of Tishri in the Hebrew Calendar) --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

== Small fixes ==

I made some fairly minor, small fixes. Mostly just small factual changes, grammar fixes, or clarification. --[[User:Ohniner|Ohniner]] 16:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Life Cycle Section=
Bar Mitzvah means son of the commandments, Bat Mitzvah means daughter of the Commandments. Technically, when a boy turns 13, he becomes Bar Mitzvah, a man, responsible for the commandments. There is often a ceremony to celebrate the child becoming Bar Mitzvah, however the ceremony is not called a Bar Mitzvah as the article says.
--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Judaism

2009-06-22T20:04:02Z

Redsox70707: /* Towafalaa */

Talk:Judaism

2009-06-22T20:02:32Z

Redsox70707: /* Towafalaa */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.

I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should be merged with [[Jews]] and [[Jew]].--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism ==

It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.

Since [[Abraham]] is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.

I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy

:: Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au March 31, 2007

:::Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wrong. While marriage outside the faith is prohibited, a child born of a Jewish mother is fully Jewish. Converts from certain nations (Moabites, Egyptians, &c.) could not marry full Jews (“enter into the assembly of the LORD”), only other converts—up to a certain number of generations.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --[[User:M|M]]

:But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Jesus is of historical importance to Jews because he founded Christianity. That said, I’m editing the “Jewish views on Jesus” for relevancy & accuracy.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. [[User:Isiah24]]

I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: myles325@yahoo.com.au

:While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au

:Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
:So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unexpected deletions ==

I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Preposterous examples of stupidity==

That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Should there be something telling how the Jews will be converted to Christianity in the end, according to Revelations. [[User:LilGeorgiaPeach81|Mellie]] 15:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a disgustingly selfish and misguided view. So what if someone doesn't agree with what we think? We should learn to accept other people for who they are.

== some more added ==

I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.

== Jews for Jesus? ==

I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish.
There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--[[User:M|M]] 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Nation'==
*''Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt''
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--[[User:M|M]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestions==
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Menorah==
Why was the menorah replaced witht the Star of David? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== G-d ==

Could someone change the 'G-d' in the last paragraph to 'God'? It is silly to use God's name five times in the page, then wrap it up with a 'G-d'. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 00:23, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:Then G-d should be written as such throughout the article. It is a Jewish Article. [[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::But it's a Christian wiki and country.

I am shocked and appalled by the use of the word 'yahweh' in the quotes from the bible. The article is about judaism and yahweh is a mistranslation of YHWH the letters of the true name of g-d. Any passage attached to judaism should have lord, g-d, adonai or etc instead of 'yahweh' ([[User:Shieldofdavid|Shieldofdavid]] 05:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT))

Shield of David, I'm the offender. Sometines it's hard to know what to do as we're coming, I think, from different frames of reference. In any case, in any future postings here, I'll refrain from writing "Yahweh" in an article itself. I did think of writing an article on Yahweh, and may still do so. But of course this would be a technical, so to speak, article and not a random use of the Name when it need not be used. But here, on this talk page, I'll just note - YHVH appearing in the Bible is from the root of the verb "to be" and that is why the Greek version translated it by "'o ontos" probably best translated "The One who is being" or "the being One". which is why the most common English translation has it "I am who I am" * who sent Moses on his mission. But almost certainly the vowels, which are not in the orginal text, as is the case with Biblical Hebrew, puts the verb in the Hiph'il (those are the vowels that appear in "Yahweh") which is causative, and since the form is causative without reference to time (past, present or future), It probably meant (clumsy in the English but not in the Hebrew) in the context, "I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being", It is I who am sending you, Moses, so don't be afraid!. Something like that. that's a mighty powerful God![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

*Linguistic note - Though the divine name throughout is YHVH which is in the 3rd person singular = "''He'' has, is, shall...", a key passage is Deuteronomy 3 :14 which is in the 1st person singular = " ''I'' have, shall...". As I noted, the vowels are not original to the text and the vowels that appear in the masoretic text put it into the Pa'al form making it imply (but not requiring it to be) a non causative sense; and so the words can bear the meaning "I will be whom (or what) I will be..." But knowing that the vowels are a centuries later addition (and interpretation) leave us open to consider the equal possibility, as I have noted, that the form is not Pa"al ("'eh"- 1st syllable) but Hiph'il ("'ah" - 1st syllable), making it causative, rendering the meaning, in this case in Deut. 3:14 first person - ''I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)''

==Ethnicities===
I wish to expand of these but it is locked.
[[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Criticism Section ==

What do people think? The main goal would be to acknowledge that Jews are not saved without appearing anti-semitic. We could also mention the general permissiveness of Judaism, the higher rates of secularization, disputing that Jesus was the messiah, circumcision, Purim, etc. This would not be a section to allege stupid conspiracy theories ("Jews control such and such") or to criticize Israel.

:Firstly, I would not call it criticism. We have to tread very lightly and still be respectful and sensitive. Judaism is not viewed in any way as inferior on this site merely because it is not Christianity, and there is a deep bond and shared history between the two. I would put whatever information you feel is noteworthy under different sections as appropriate without bunching it together or making value judgements. After that we can see how it looks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that Learn together's approach is a very good one[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 14:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Truly unintended slights ==

Here I see that people of good will are bumping into other people of good will. On one hand, we see that Jews can be offended by the Christians using the Divine Name in an article on Judaism and elsewhere, seemingly oblivious (but meaning no harm at all) to the fact that to Jews the Name is too holy to pronounce ''meforash'' = so explicity. Wasn't it only to actually be said only once a year, and that in the Holy Temple, and that only by the High Priest? On the other hand, we see that reference to God, to the Lord, can be so "casual" as to be written in small letters - g-d, lord, adonai, which seems to Christians strange and somehow demeaning of Him. And yet, Jews would not have intended it demeaningly at all but somehow it happens due to the influence probably/possibly of the Hebrew Language, as well as all semitic languages, namely, these languages have no differing sizes letters, no "Capital letters". All this requires a great deal of understanding of one another.

== "They do, however, respect him and consider Jesus to be an ethical person." ==

REALLY?! I do? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 04:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I pity the poor administrators and editors that have to deal with this question! This is a a hard one. There are so many Jewish views about Jesus, as well as no view at all. There is no uniformity on this question as well as among Jews generally. There is more of a tendency among Reformed Jews, due to the development of Reform Judaism, and there is more of an openness, to embrace Jesus as "one of us", as an ethical teacher, and even a prophetic voice within Judaism. On the other hand, there is more of a rejection of even these views among the orthodox from various streams, even to the avoidance of uttering the name of Jesus, sometimes referring to Jesus as "the man". This is not due, I think, to the religious referencs of Orthodoxy. but due to the various histories of the orthodox dispersions and histories. Yet I remember Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University, a teacher of Talmud, Greek Classics, and New Testament studies, and an Orthodox Jew himself, saying, in his lectures with many religious Jews present, that Jesus was more than a man, and his being so against the critical liberal Christian scholars who throw out good history in their attempt of "reducing" Jesus. So there is no one single Jewish position about Jesus. Another factor, influencing secular Jews as well as the religious, is the viewing of Jesus, or rather the inability of view Jesus, as He really is, because of the Jewish experience amidst Christendom. of so much that is the total opposite of the goodness of the Lord. Yet, even here, there is also much good of sincere and holy followers of Jesus. The professor I mentioned above, Dr, Flusser, in his native Germany before the holocaust, had the good fortune, as he would tell, of meeting Mennonite Christians would showed him the difference between "Christians" and true followers of Jesus. I think that in the article, it is best to not include the Jewish attitude to Jesus. Only my opinion, not graven in stone.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 15:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

: I edited the article; is this closer to what you’d think correct?[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I earlier put in links to http://www.JewsforJudaism and http://www.MessiahTruth.com to try to show the Jewish view of Jesus, but one of the admins didn't like these links, if anything is going to be said about the Jewish view of Jesus wouldn't those sites be essential ? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:Deborah, I took a look at/through the MessianicTruth site. I think that it is a decidedly "Jewish view of Missionary to the Jews" site, rather than a "Jewish view of Jesus" site. The view of Jesus that does emerge is more of a counter polemic with very little real view of Jesus coming through. In an expanded Judaism article, the sites you mention probably could go under a subsection or sub-subsection of this article under the title of "Jewish views toward Christian Missionary work" or "Jewish views toward Messianic Jews" but it may be better under an article itself with one of these titles.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 03:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Towafalaa ==

Is this spelled wrong? I get 0 hits on Yahoo and Google. The "11th of September" reference seems suspicious as well. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nobody can help me out? I'm going to remove it to be on the safe side. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Correct to delete. Justy some anti-Semite parody (Tower Fall) Tawafalla, Sept 11 9am-noon --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::No, this is an actual holiday, it's not commonly translated from Hebrew--[[User:AshleyF|AshleyF]] 20:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Jpatt is right, and you are a parodist. Jewish holidays don't follow the gregorian calendar, do they? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
No, Jewish Holidays follow the Hebrew Calendar (for example Yom Kippur will happen in October some years, and September other years, however it always falls on the 10th of Tishri in the Hebrew Calendar)

== Small fixes ==

I made some fairly minor, small fixes. Mostly just small factual changes, grammar fixes, or clarification. --[[User:Ohniner|Ohniner]] 16:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Life Cycle Section=
Bar Mitzvah means son of the commandments, Bat Mitzvah means daughter of the Commandments. Technically, when a boy turns 13, he becomes Bar Mitzvah, a man, responsible for the commandments. There is often a ceremony to celebrate the child becoming Bar Mitzvah, however the ceremony is not called a Bar Mitzvah as the article says.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:34:10Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:32:25Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:28:15Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:27:22Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:24:16Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:21:10Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:19:14Z

Redsox70707: /* The Muslim Section */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T16:16:06Z

Redsox70707:

Islam

2009-06-22T16:04:35Z

Redsox70707: /* Islam and Paganism */ No Muslim believes in a pagan moon God, nor is there any Islamic writings which speak of it. It has no real legititamicy.

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a seventh century [[Arab]] religious and [[politics|political]] figure. The word "Islam" means "submission [to Allah]" in [[Arabic language|Arabic]].

A follower of Islam is called a Muslim or Moslem, a term which means "one who submits (to God)". The older term [[Mohammedan]] means "follower of Muhammad", and has been used for centuries. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. State University of New York Press, 1992.</ref>. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be [[God]]'s last and greatest [[prophet]]. The faith teaches that the [[Archangel]] [[Gabriel]] appeared to him.

Muslims believe that God ("Allah", '''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) revealed the [[Qur'an]] (or Koran) to Muhammad and, despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it <ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an is considered to be the pure and [[holy]] word of God. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]]. Islam claims to trace its roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Based upon this belief, [[the Bible]], [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]], is believed to have become corrupted as well.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]
Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.5 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates, in both Muslim-majority and other countries . Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

Many believe that Islam is, with [[Atheism]], currently the greatest threat to [[Christianity]] and [[Christian values]], <ref>[http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1134840164.htm Is Islam a Threat to Christianity?]</ref><ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/8/183305.shtml Islam's Threat to the West]</ref><ref>[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/stock/050413 Why Islam Hates Christianity]</ref> and the overwhelming majority of modern [[terrorist|terrorists]] are Muslims. It should be noted that only a small extremist sect of Muslims participate in this activity, using the concept of "Jihad" (Holy War), to justify their actions.

==Historical Background==
According to Islamic belief, in 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], in the Arabian desert (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] to "recite" the message of [[Allah]] (Arabic for God). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgement day. The message to Muhammad was to be God's last; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muhammad's forces starting attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632. It is believed that Muhammed is the last Prophet.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]
Tribal elders elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through the sword into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name apparently taken from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God. Some utterances that Mohammed was unsure about, dubbed the Satanic verses, would later be incorporated in a novel in modern times by [[Salmon Rushdie]] who would then be subject to a death degree from the leader of Iran for his writing.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners. It is hard to know the truth. Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
For the most part, the Qur'an treats men and [[woman|women]] equally, applies the same injunctions and prohibitions to men and women, and grants many of the same privileges and benefits. But women are treated separately in certain instances. For example, women are required to "... draw their outer garments around them ... that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed (by men)." (Qur'an 33:59) Covering the head and body in public (hijab) is viewed by many Muslim women as a protection of their modesty, a way to discourage men's covetous eyes. The principle of hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and regular "street clothes" may be voluntary and acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the only two Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of modest garb.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, and point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, and point to past Christian-dominated cultures such as medieval Europe as examples that other religions can be distorted to justify oppression.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Some critics claim that Muslim men oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities. Defenders of some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect, not constrict, women, or that many Muslim women adopt the life style of the veil voluntarily. There are Muslim women who agree and disagree with the critics.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the Dome of the Rock mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims are proscribed from drinking alcoholic beverages. Observant Muslims do not collect interest.

====Non-Muslim Practices====
Some practices have been associated with Islam because they occur in Islamic countries, but actually are not a part of Islam. For example, female circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an, but is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" but not obligatory condition. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, notably in Eritrea, Yemen, and Egypt. Another example of a practice that has been associated incorrectly with Islam is honor killing, in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that dishonored the family through unmarried pregnancy or promiscuous behavior. The "honor killing" is more ancient and possibly tribalistic pagan in origin.

==Islam and Christianity==
While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him and his mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified:

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."

Qur'an 5:73-75

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]].]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}

Sharia law is used in many modern Islamic theocracies and prescribes very harsh treatments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death.<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

----
''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]

==Prominent Muslims==
*[[Muhammad]]
*[[Muhammad Ali]]
*[[Ahmed Deedat]]
*[[Yusef Islam]]
*[[Prince Naseem Hamed]]
*[[Rezazadeh Hossein]]
*[[Ayatollah Khomeini]]
*[[Ayatollah Khamenei]]
*[[Mohammad Khatami]]
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]
*President [[Barack Hussein Obama]] (suspected)

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-22T15:57:36Z

Redsox70707:

Talk:Judaism

2009-06-22T15:46:53Z

Redsox70707:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.

I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should be merged with [[Jews]] and [[Jew]].--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism ==

It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.

Since [[Abraham]] is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.

I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy

:: Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au March 31, 2007

:::Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wrong. While marriage outside the faith is prohibited, a child born of a Jewish mother is fully Jewish. Converts from certain nations (Moabites, Egyptians, &c.) could not marry full Jews (“enter into the assembly of the LORD”), only other converts—up to a certain number of generations.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --[[User:M|M]]

:But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Jesus is of historical importance to Jews because he founded Christianity. That said, I’m editing the “Jewish views on Jesus” for relevancy & accuracy.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. [[User:Isiah24]]

I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: myles325@yahoo.com.au

:While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au

:Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
:So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unexpected deletions ==

I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Preposterous examples of stupidity==

That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Should there be something telling how the Jews will be converted to Christianity in the end, according to Revelations. [[User:LilGeorgiaPeach81|Mellie]] 15:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a disgustingly selfish and misguided view. So what if someone doesn't agree with what we think? We should learn to accept other people for who they are.

== some more added ==

I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.

== Jews for Jesus? ==

I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish.
There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--[[User:M|M]] 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Nation'==
*''Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt''
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--[[User:M|M]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestions==
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Menorah==
Why was the menorah replaced witht the Star of David? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== G-d ==

Could someone change the 'G-d' in the last paragraph to 'God'? It is silly to use God's name five times in the page, then wrap it up with a 'G-d'. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 00:23, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:Then G-d should be written as such throughout the article. It is a Jewish Article. [[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::But it's a Christian wiki and country.

I am shocked and appalled by the use of the word 'yahweh' in the quotes from the bible. The article is about judaism and yahweh is a mistranslation of YHWH the letters of the true name of g-d. Any passage attached to judaism should have lord, g-d, adonai or etc instead of 'yahweh' ([[User:Shieldofdavid|Shieldofdavid]] 05:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT))

Shield of David, I'm the offender. Sometines it's hard to know what to do as we're coming, I think, from different frames of reference. In any case, in any future postings here, I'll refrain from writing "Yahweh" in an article itself. I did think of writing an article on Yahweh, and may still do so. But of course this would be a technical, so to speak, article and not a random use of the Name when it need not be used. But here, on this talk page, I'll just note - YHVH appearing in the Bible is from the root of the verb "to be" and that is why the Greek version translated it by "'o ontos" probably best translated "The One who is being" or "the being One". which is why the most common English translation has it "I am who I am" * who sent Moses on his mission. But almost certainly the vowels, which are not in the orginal text, as is the case with Biblical Hebrew, puts the verb in the Hiph'il (those are the vowels that appear in "Yahweh") which is causative, and since the form is causative without reference to time (past, present or future), It probably meant (clumsy in the English but not in the Hebrew) in the context, "I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being", It is I who am sending you, Moses, so don't be afraid!. Something like that. that's a mighty powerful God![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

*Linguistic note - Though the divine name throughout is YHVH which is in the 3rd person singular = "''He'' has, is, shall...", a key passage is Deuteronomy 3 :14 which is in the 1st person singular = " ''I'' have, shall...". As I noted, the vowels are not original to the text and the vowels that appear in the masoretic text put it into the Pa'al form making it imply (but not requiring it to be) a non causative sense; and so the words can bear the meaning "I will be whom (or what) I will be..." But knowing that the vowels are a centuries later addition (and interpretation) leave us open to consider the equal possibility, as I have noted, that the form is not Pa"al ("'eh"- 1st syllable) but Hiph'il ("'ah" - 1st syllable), making it causative, rendering the meaning, in this case in Deut. 3:14 first person - ''I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)''

==Ethnicities===
I wish to expand of these but it is locked.
[[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Criticism Section ==

What do people think? The main goal would be to acknowledge that Jews are not saved without appearing anti-semitic. We could also mention the general permissiveness of Judaism, the higher rates of secularization, disputing that Jesus was the messiah, circumcision, Purim, etc. This would not be a section to allege stupid conspiracy theories ("Jews control such and such") or to criticize Israel.

:Firstly, I would not call it criticism. We have to tread very lightly and still be respectful and sensitive. Judaism is not viewed in any way as inferior on this site merely because it is not Christianity, and there is a deep bond and shared history between the two. I would put whatever information you feel is noteworthy under different sections as appropriate without bunching it together or making value judgements. After that we can see how it looks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that Learn together's approach is a very good one[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 14:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Truly unintended slights ==

Here I see that people of good will are bumping into other people of good will. On one hand, we see that Jews can be offended by the Christians using the Divine Name in an article on Judaism and elsewhere, seemingly oblivious (but meaning no harm at all) to the fact that to Jews the Name is too holy to pronounce ''meforash'' = so explicity. Wasn't it only to actually be said only once a year, and that in the Holy Temple, and that only by the High Priest? On the other hand, we see that reference to God, to the Lord, can be so "casual" as to be written in small letters - g-d, lord, adonai, which seems to Christians strange and somehow demeaning of Him. And yet, Jews would not have intended it demeaningly at all but somehow it happens due to the influence probably/possibly of the Hebrew Language, as well as all semitic languages, namely, these languages have no differing sizes letters, no "Capital letters". All this requires a great deal of understanding of one another.

== "They do, however, respect him and consider Jesus to be an ethical person." ==

REALLY?! I do? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 04:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I pity the poor administrators and editors that have to deal with this question! This is a a hard one. There are so many Jewish views about Jesus, as well as no view at all. There is no uniformity on this question as well as among Jews generally. There is more of a tendency among Reformed Jews, due to the development of Reform Judaism, and there is more of an openness, to embrace Jesus as "one of us", as an ethical teacher, and even a prophetic voice within Judaism. On the other hand, there is more of a rejection of even these views among the orthodox from various streams, even to the avoidance of uttering the name of Jesus, sometimes referring to Jesus as "the man". This is not due, I think, to the religious referencs of Orthodoxy. but due to the various histories of the orthodox dispersions and histories. Yet I remember Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University, a teacher of Talmud, Greek Classics, and New Testament studies, and an Orthodox Jew himself, saying, in his lectures with many religious Jews present, that Jesus was more than a man, and his being so against the critical liberal Christian scholars who throw out good history in their attempt of "reducing" Jesus. So there is no one single Jewish position about Jesus. Another factor, influencing secular Jews as well as the religious, is the viewing of Jesus, or rather the inability of view Jesus, as He really is, because of the Jewish experience amidst Christendom. of so much that is the total opposite of the goodness of the Lord. Yet, even here, there is also much good of sincere and holy followers of Jesus. The professor I mentioned above, Dr, Flusser, in his native Germany before the holocaust, had the good fortune, as he would tell, of meeting Mennonite Christians would showed him the difference between "Christians" and true followers of Jesus. I think that in the article, it is best to not include the Jewish attitude to Jesus. Only my opinion, not graven in stone.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 15:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

: I edited the article; is this closer to what you’d think correct?[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I earlier put in links to http://www.JewsforJudaism and http://www.MessiahTruth.com to try to show the Jewish view of Jesus, but one of the admins didn't like these links, if anything is going to be said about the Jewish view of Jesus wouldn't those sites be essential ? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:Deborah, I took a look at/through the MessianicTruth site. I think that it is a decidedly "Jewish view of Missionary to the Jews" site, rather than a "Jewish view of Jesus" site. The view of Jesus that does emerge is more of a counter polemic with very little real view of Jesus coming through. In an expanded Judaism article, the sites you mention probably could go under a subsection or sub-subsection of this article under the title of "Jewish views toward Christian Missionary work" or "Jewish views toward Messianic Jews" but it may be better under an article itself with one of these titles.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 03:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Towafalaa ==

Is this spelled wrong? I get 0 hits on Yahoo and Google. The "11th of September" reference seems suspicious as well. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nobody can help me out? I'm going to remove it to be on the safe side. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Correct to delete. Justy some anti-Semite parody (Tower Fall) Tawafalla, Sept 11 9am-noon --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::No, this is an actual holiday, it's not commonly translated from Hebrew--[[User:AshleyF|AshleyF]] 20:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Jpatt is right, and you are a parodist. Jewish holidays don't follow the gregorian calendar, do they? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Small fixes ==

I made some fairly minor, small fixes. Mostly just small factual changes, grammar fixes, or clarification. --[[User:Ohniner|Ohniner]] 16:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Life Cycle Section=
Bar Mitzvah means son of the commandments, Bat Mitzvah means daughter of the Commandments. Technically, when a boy turns 13, he becomes Bar Mitzvah, a man, responsible for the commandments. There is often a ceremony to celebrate the child becoming Bar Mitzvah, however the ceremony is not called a Bar Mitzvah as the article says.

Israel

2009-06-22T15:31:10Z

Redsox70707: Yisrael means struggled with God, it was the name given to Jacob after he wrestled with an angel of God

{{Country
|name =מדינת ישראל ''Medīnat Yisrā'el''
|map =Israel shaded.jpg
|flag =Flag of Israel.png
|arms =Arms of Israel.png
|capital =Jerusalem
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Hebrew, Arabic
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|governor general=
|governor general-raw=
|president =Shimon Peres
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Benjamin Netanyahu
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|general secretary=
|governor =
|governor-raw =
|premier =
|premier-raw =
|area =8,019 / 8,522 sq mi
|pop =7,184,000
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$170.3 billion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$31,767
|currency =Shekel
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The '''State of Israel''' ([[Hebrew]]: '''מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל''', ''Medinat Yisra'el'' from ''' יִשְׂרָאֵל''' ''Yisra'el'', "Struggled with God") is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It is the world's only Jewish state, allowing citizenship to anybody its government considers to be [[Jewish]]. It also contains [[Arab]] Muslim and Arab [[Christian]] minorities who are remnants of the pre-1948 Arab majority, along with a small [[Druze]] community. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Biblical events]].

==Geography==

Israel occupies an area along the eastern Mediterranean Sea, with [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] to the east; [[Lebanon]] on the north; and [[Egypt]] to the south. The terrain varies from a temperate, coastal climate to desert conditions. Israel shares with Jordan the shoreline of the [[Dead Sea]], at 1,378 feet below sea level the lowest point on earth.

==People==
Of the approximately 6.43 million Israelis in 2007, about 76% were counted as Jewish, though some of those are not considered Jewish under [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jewish]] law. Since 1989, nearly a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union have arrived in Israel, making this the largest wave of immigration since independence. In addition, an estimated 105,000 members of the [[Ethiopian]] Jewish community have immigrated to Israel, 14,000 of them during the dramatic May 1991 Operation Solomon airlift. 32.9% of Israelis were born outside of Israel.

The three broad Jewish groupings are the Ashkenazim, or Jews who trace their ancestry to western, central, and eastern Europe; the Sephardim, who trace their origin to [[Spain]], [[Portugal]], southern Europe, and North Africa; and Eastern or Oriental Jews, who descend from ancient communities in Islamic lands. Of the non-Jewish population, about 68% are Muslims, about 9% are Christian, and about 7% are Druze.

Education is compulsory from age 6 to 16 and is free up to age 18. The school system is organized into kindergartens, 6-year primary schools, 3-year junior secondary schools, and 3-year senior secondary schools, after which a comprehensive examination is offered for university admissions. There are seven university-level institutions in Israel, a number of regional colleges, and an Open University program.

The majority of families in Israel - Jewish and Arab - send their children to segregated schools. This [[segregation]] poses a distinct problem, tending to promote rival viewpoints and attitudes that become ripe for exploitation by proponents of violence. Within Israel, the schools of the minority Arab population become incubators for resentment and hostility, while the schools of the majority Jewish population tend to reinforce a sense of insulation from the concerns of others. <ref>http://handinhandk12.org/</ref>

With a population drawn from more than 100 countries on 5 continents, Israeli society is rich in cultural diversity and artistic creativity. The arts are actively encouraged and supported by the government. ''The first Jewish artist on record was named Bezalel. He was an architect, sculptor and designer of holy garments. Mostly he was known for making the Tabernacle that contained the Ark of the Covenant.'' <ref> [http://www.jewish-art.org/ancient-jewish-art.html Ancient Jewish art]</ref> The Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performs throughout the country and frequently tours abroad. The Jerusalem Symphony and the New Israel Opera also tour frequently, as do other musical ensembles. Almost every municipality has a chamber orchestra or ensemble, many boasting the talents of gifted performers from the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Israel has several professional ballet and modern dance companies, and folk dancing, which draws upon the cultural heritage of many immigrant groups, continues to be very popular. There is great public interest in the theater; the repertoire covers the entire range of classical and contemporary drama in translation as well as plays by Israeli authors. Of the three major repertory companies, the most famous, Habimah, was founded in 1917.

Active artist colonies thrive in Safed, Jaffa, and Ein Hod, and Israeli painters and sculptors exhibit works worldwide. Israel boasts more than 120 museums, including the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, which houses the Dead Sea Scrolls along with an extensive collection of regional archaeological artifacts, art, and Jewish religious and folk exhibits. Israelis are avid newspaper readers, with more than 90% of Israeli adults reading a newspaper at least once a week. Major daily papers are in Hebrew; others are in Arabic, English, French, Polish, Yiddish, Russian, Hungarian, and German.

==Government==
[[Image:Tst4436.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[David Ben Gurion]], the First Prime Minister of Israel, publicly pronouncing the Declaration of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948, [[Tel Aviv]], Israel, beneath a large [[portraits|portrait]] of Theodore Herzl, founder of modern political Zionism, in the old Tel Aviv Museum of Art building on Rotshild St.]]
Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Its governmental system is based on several basic laws enacted by its unicameral parliament, the Knesset. The president (chief of state) is elected by the Knesset for a 5-year term.

The prime minister (head of government) exercises executive power and has in the past been selected by the president as the party leader most able to form a government. Between May 1996 and March 2001, Israelis voted for the prime minister directly. (The legislation, which required the direct election of the prime minister, was rescinded by the Knesset in March 2001.) The members of the cabinet must be collectively approved by the Knesset.

The Knesset's 120 members are elected by secret ballot to 4-year terms, although the prime minister may decide to call for new elections before the end of the 4-year term. Voting is for party lists rather than for individual candidates, and the total number of seats assigned each party reflects that party's percentage of the vote. Successful Knesset candidates are drawn from the lists in order of party-assigned rank. Under the present electoral system, all members of the Knesset are elected at large.

The independent judicial system includes secular and religious courts. The courts' right of judicial review of the Knesset's legislation is limited. Judicial interpretation is restricted to problems of execution of laws and validity of subsidiary legislation. The highest court in Israel is the Supreme Court, whose judges are approved by the President.

Israel is divided into six districts, administration of which is coordinated by the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry of Defense is responsible for the administration of the occupied territories.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Shimon Peres
*Prime Minister--Benjamin Netanyahu
*Foreign Minister--Tzipi Livni (Kadima)
*Ambassador to the United States--Sallai Meridor
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Dan Gillerman

===Political Conditions===
From the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948 until the election of May 1977, Israel was ruled by successive coalition governments led by the Labor alignment or its constituent parties. From 1967-70, the coalition government included all of Israel's parties except the communist party. After the 1977 election, the Likud bloc, then composed of Herut, the Liberals, and the smaller La'am Party, came to power forming a coalition with the National Religious Party, Agudat Israel, and others. As head of Likud, Menachem Begin became Prime Minister. The Likud retained power in the succeeding election in June 1981, and Begin remained Prime Minister. In the summer of 1983, Begin resigned and was succeeded by his Foreign Minister, Yitzhak Shamir.

After Prime Minister Shamir lost a Knesset vote of confidence early in 1984, new elections in July provided no clear winner, with both Labor and Likud considerably short of a Knesset majority and unable to form even narrow coalitions. After several weeks of difficult negotiations, they agreed on a government of national unity, including the rotation of the office of Prime Minister and the combined office of Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister midway through the government's 50-month term.

During the first 25 months of unity government rule, Labor's Shimon Peres served as Prime Minister, while Likud's Shamir held the posts of Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, until they switched positions in October 1986. In November 1988 elections, Likud edged Labor out by one seat but was unable to form a coalition, producing another national unity government in January 1989. Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister, and Shimon Peres became Vice Prime Minister and Finance Minister. This government fell in March 1990, however, in a vote of no confidence precipitated by disagreement over the government's response to U.S. Secretary of State Baker's initiative in the peace process. Labor Party leader Peres was unable to attract sufficient support among the religious parties to form a government. Yitzhak Shamir then formed a Likud-led coalition government, including members from religious and right-wing parties.

Shamir's government took office in June 1990, and held power for 2 years. In the June 1992 national elections, the Labor Party reversed its electoral fortunes, taking 44 seats. Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin formed a coalition with Meretz (a group of three leftist parties) and Shas (an ultra-Orthodox religious party). The coalition included the support of two Arab-majority parties. Rabin became Prime Minister in July 1992, presiding over the signing of the Oslo accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization. However, Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish radical on November 4, 1995. Peres, then Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, once again became Prime Minister and immediately proceeded to carry forward the peace policies of the Rabin government and to implement Israel's Oslo commitments, including military redeployment in the West Bank and the holding of historic Palestinian elections on January 20, 1996.

Enjoying broad public support and anxious to secure his own mandate, Peres called for early elections after just 3 months in office. (They would have otherwise been held by the end of October 1996.) In late February and early March, a series of suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian terrorists took some 60 Israeli lives, seriously eroding public support for Peres and raising concerns about the peace process. Increased fighting in southern Lebanon, which also brought Katyusha rocket attacks against northern Israel, also raised tensions and weakened the government politically a month before the May 29 elections.

In those elections--the first direct election of a Prime Minister in Israeli history--Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu won by a narrow margin, having sharply criticized the government's peace policies for failing to protect Israeli security. Netanyahu subsequently formed a right-wing coalition government publicly committed to pursuing the peace process, but with an emphasis on security and reciprocity. In 1999, with a shrunken coalition and facing increasing difficulty passing legislation and defeating no-confidence motions, Netanyahu dissolved parliament and called for new elections. This time, the Labor candidate--Ehud Barak--was victorious. Barak formed a mixed coalition government of secular and religious parties, with Likud in the opposition. In May 2000, Barak fulfilled one of his major campaign promises by withdrawing Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon. However, by mid-autumn, with the breakdown of the Camp David talks and the worsening security situation caused by the new intifada, Barak's coalition was in jeopardy. In December, he resigned as Prime Minister, precipitating a new prime ministerial election.

In a special election on February 6, 2001, after a campaign stressing security and the maintenance of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, Likud leader Ariel Sharon defeated Barak by over 20 percentage points. As he had promised in his campaign, Sharon formed a broad unity government that included the Labor and Likud parties, the far-right parties, some smaller secular parties, and several religious parties. The unity government collapsed in late 2002, and new elections were held in January 2003. Sharon again won, and formed a new government consisting of his own Likud party, the right-wing National Religious Party and National Union party, and centrist Shinui.

The summer of 2004 saw renewed instability in the government, as disagreement over the Gaza disengagement plan resulted in Sharon's firing two ministers of the National Union Party and accepting the resignation of a third from the National Religious Party in order to secure cabinet approval of the plan (it was endorsed on June 6, 2004). Continuing divisions within the Likud on next steps then prompted Ariel Sharon to leave the party in November 2005 to form the Kadima ("Forward") party and call new elections for March 2006. However, Sharon was unexpectedly incapacitated in January 2006 due to a severe stroke and leadership of Kadima shifted to Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who on March 28 led the party to 29 seats in the Knesset. Labor came in second with 19 seats, and Shas and Likud tied with 12. After intensive coalition negotiations, a new, Kadima-led government, with Labor as "senior partner", was sworn in on May 4, 2006.

===Foreign Relations===
In addition to seeking an end to hostilities with Arab forces, against which it has fought five wars since 1948, Israel has given high priority to gaining wide acceptance as a sovereign state with an important international role.

Before 1967, Israel had established diplomatic relations with a majority of the world's nations, except for the Arab states and most other Muslim countries. UN Security Council resolutions provided the basis for cease-fire and disengagement agreements concerning the Sinai and the Golan Heights between Israel, Egypt, and Syria and for promoting the Camp David accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. The Soviet Union and the communist states of Eastern Europe (except Romania) broke diplomatic relations with Israel during the 1967 war, but those relations were restored by 1991.

The landmark October 1991 Madrid conference recognized the importance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in resolving regional disputes, and brought together for the first time Israel, the Palestinians, and the neighboring Arab countries, launching a series of direct bilateral and multilateral negotiations. These talks were designed to finally resolve outstanding security, border, and other issues between the parties while providing a basis for mutual cooperation on issues of general concern, including the status of refugees, arms control and regional security, water and environmental concerns, and economic development.

Today, Israel has diplomatic relations with 161 states. Following the signing of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993, Israel established or renewed diplomatic relations with 36 countries. Israel has full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan, and Mauritania. In addition, on October 1, 1994, the Gulf States publicly announced their support for a review of the Arab boycott, in effect abolishing the secondary and tertiary boycotts against Israel.

Israel has diplomatic relations with nine non-Arab Muslim states and with 32 of the 43 Sub-Saharan states that are not members of the Arab League. Israel established relations with China and India in 1992 and with the Holy See in 1993.

===Relations with the United States===
[[Image:Mosque.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem]]
Commitment to Israel's security and well being has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Israel's founding in 1948, in which the United States played a key supporting role. Israel and the United States are bound closely by historic and cultural ties as well as by mutual interests. Continuing U.S. economic and security assistance to Israel acknowledges these ties and signals U.S. commitment. The broad issues of Arab-Israeli peace have been a major focus in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. U.S. efforts to reach a Middle East peace settlement are based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and have been based on the premise that as Israel takes calculated risks for peace the United States will help minimize those risks.

On a bilateral level, relations between the United States and Israel are continually strengthening in every field. In addition to the Joint Political-Military Group described above, there are: bilateral science and technology efforts (including the Binational Science Foundation and the Binational Agricultural Research and Development Foundation); the U.S.-Israeli Education Foundation, which sponsors educational and cultural programs; the Joint Economic Development Group, which maintains a high-level dialogue on economic issues; the Joint Counterterrorism Group, designed to enhance cooperation in fighting terrorism; and a high-level Strategic Dialogue that meets biannually.

==Defense==
Israel's ground, air, and naval forces, known as the Israel Defense Force (IDF), fall under the command of a single general staff. Conscription is universal for Israeli men and women over the age of 18, although exemptions may be made on religious grounds. Druze, members of a small Islamic offshoot living in Israel's mountains, also serve in the IDF. Israeli Arabs, with the exception of some Bedouins, do not serve. During 1950-66, Israel spent an average of 9% of GDP on defense. Real defense expenditures increased dramatically after both the 1967 and 1973 wars. Military spending in 2005 totaled $9.45 billion, which is equivalent to 7.7% of GDP, and represents 16.3% of government expenditures. The United States provides approximately $2.4 billion per year in security assistance.

In 1983, the United States and Israel established the Joint Political Military Group, which meets twice a year. Both the U.S. and Israel participate in joint military planning and combined exercises, and have collaborated on military research and weapons development.

==Economy==
Israel has a diversified, technologically advanced economy with substantial but decreasing government ownership and a strong high-tech sector. The major industrial sectors include high-technology electronic and biomedical equipment, metal products, processed foods, chemicals, and transport equipment. Israel possesses a substantial service sector and is one of the world's centers for diamond cutting and polishing. It also is a world leader in software development and, prior to the violence that began in September 2000, was a major tourist destination.

Israel's strong commitment to economic development and its talented work force led to economic growth rates during the nation's first two decades that frequently exceeded 10% annually. The years after the 1973 [[Yom Kippur War]] were a lost decade economically, as growth stalled and [[inflation]] reached triple-digit levels. The successful economic stabilization plan implemented in 1985 and the subsequent introduction of market-oriented structural reforms reinvigorated the economy and paved the way for rapid growth in the 1990s.

A wave of Jewish immigration beginning in 1989, predominantly from the countries of the former U.S.S.R., brought nearly a million new citizens to Israel. These new immigrants, many of them highly educated, now constitute some 13% of Israel's 6.7 million inhabitants. Their successful absorption into Israeli society and its labor force forms a remarkable chapter in Israeli history. The skills brought by the new immigrants and their added demand as consumers gave the Israeli economy a strong upward push and in the 1990s, they played a key role in the ongoing development of Israel's high-tech sector.
*GDP (2006 est.): $170.3 billion.
*Annual growth rate (2006): 4.8%.
*Per capita GDP (2006): $26,800.
*Currency: Shekel (4.13 shekels = 1 U.S. dollar; 2007 est.).
*Natural resources: [[Copper]], [[phosphate]], [[bromide]], [[potash]], [[clay]], [[sand]], [[sulfur]], [[bitumen]], [[manganese]].
*Agriculture: Products--citrus and other fruits, vegetables, beef, dairy, and poultry products.
*Industry: Types--high-technology projects (including aviation, communications, computer-aided design and manufactures, medical electronics, fiber optics), wood and paper products, potash and phosphates, food, beverages, tobacco, caustic soda, cement, construction, plastics, chemical products, diamond cutting and polishing, metal products, textiles, and footwear.
*Trade: Exports (2006 est.)--$42.86 billion. Exports include polished diamonds, electronic communication, medical and scientific equipment, chemicals and chemical products, electronic components and computers, machinery and equipment, transport equipment, rubber, plastics, and textiles. Imports (excluding defense imports, 2006 est.)--$47.8 billion: raw materials, diamonds, energy ships and airplanes, machinery, equipment, land transportation equipment for investment, and consumer goods. Major partners--U.S., U.K., Germany; exports--U.S., Belgium, Hong Kong; imports--U.S., Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, U.K.

During the 1990s, progress in the Middle East peace process, beginning with the Madrid Conference of 1991, helped to reduce Israel's economic isolation from its neighbors and opened up new markets to Israeli exporters farther afield. The peace process stimulated an unprecedented inflow of foreign investment in Israel, and provided a substantial boost to economic growth in the region over the last decade. The onset of the intifada beginning at the end of September of 2000, the downturn in the high-tech sector and Nasdaq crisis, and the slowdown of the global economy have all significantly affected the Israeli economy. However, despite the recent conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, the Israeli economy grew during 2006.

Israeli companies, particularly in the high-tech area, have in the past enjoyed considerable success raising money on Wall Street and other world financial markets; Israel ranks second to Canada among foreign countries in the number of its companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Israel's tech market is very developed, and in spite of the pause in the industry's growth, the high-tech sector is likely to be the major driver of the Israeli economy. Almost half of Israel's exports are high tech. Most leading players, including Intel, IBM, and Cisco have a presence in Israel.

Growth was an exceptional 6.2% in 2000, due in part to a number of one-time high tech acquisitions and investments. This exceptional year was followed by two years of negative growth of -0.9% and -1%, respectively, in 2001 and 2002. As a result of the security situation and the associated downturn in the economy, there was a significant rise in unemployment and wage erosion. This led to a decline in private consumption in 2002, the first time that there had been negative private consumption since the early 1980s. However, following growth rates of 1.7% in 2003 and 4.4% in 2004, the Israeli economy entered into a period of stabilization and recovery after the deep recession of 2001 and 2002. Since then, the Israeli economy seems to have returned to a trend of consistent growth. The Israeli economy grew by 5.2% in 2005 and GDP per capita (U.S. $17,800) increased by 3.3%. The Israeli economy grew by an estimated 4.8% in 2006.

Exports of goods and services in Israel grew by 7% in 2005. Service and agricultural exports each increased by more than 10% in 2005, whereas exports increased by 5.6% and imports rose to 4.4%. [[Israel Tourism]] revenues increased by 22.7% as a result of the dramatic increase following the intifada's subsidence.

Israel's private consumption increased by 4% in 2005. The largest growth in private consumption was in the purchase of clothing, footwear, and personal effects, which increased by 10.2%, following an increase of 5.4% in 2004. Consumption of consumer durables grew much more slowly than in 2004, with an increase of only 3.4%, compared with 14.3% the previous year.

In the Israeli business sector, business GDP grew by 6.6% in 2005. According to CBS statistics, the transportation, storage, and communications industries grew by 9.2%, following growth of 6.6% in 2004. The GDP of the wholesale, retail, restaurant, and hotel sector increased by 8.1%, up from 6.1% in 2004. The GDP of the finance and business services sector in 2005 increased by 6.4%, up from the previous year's 6.1% growth rate.

The general consensus among economists is that Israel's economy is very strong and that its growth potential is in the 4% to 5% range.

The United States is Israel's largest trading partner. In 2005, two-way trade totaled some $26.6 billion, up 12% from 2004. The U.S. trade deficit with Israel was $7.1 billion in 2005, up 33% from 2004, due largely to rising Israeli exports to the U.S. U.S. exports to Israel rose 6.1% in 2005 to $9.7 billion, making Israel our 19th largest export market for goods. The principal goods exported from the U.S. include civilian aircraft parts, telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, civilian aircraft, electrical apparatus, and computer accessories. Israel's chief exports to the U.S. include diamonds, pharmaceutical preparations, telecommunications equipment, medicinal equipment, electrical apparatus, and cotton apparel. The two countries signed a free trade agreement (FTA) in 1985 that progressively eliminated tariffs on most goods traded between the two countries over the following 10 years. An agricultural trade accord signed in November 1996 addressed the remaining goods not covered in the FTA but has not entirely erased barriers to trade in the agricultural sector. Israel also has trade and cooperation agreements in place with the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and other countries.

Best prospect industry sectors in Israel for U.S. exporters are electricity and gas equipment, defense equipment, medical instruments and disposable products, industrial chemicals, telecommunication equipment, electronic components, building materials/construction industries (DIY and infrastructure), safety and security equipment and services, non-prescription drugs, travel and tourism services, and computer software.

==History==
The name Israel refers to [[Jacob]] from the [[Bible]], the father of the [[Jews]] who would eventually create the kingdom of Israel. (See the [[Genesis|Book of Genesis]] in the Bible.) Jacob's descendants were numerous, but were put under bondage in [[Egypt]]. The first attempt at forming a nation dates back to the migration or [[Exodus of Israel]] out of Egypt after being freed from their [[slavery]]. (See the [[Exodus|Book of Exodus]] in the Bible). While the exact date is not known, the most likely scenario is in the 1400's B.C. After 40 years of wandering, the Hebrews attempted to settle in the land of Canaan, after first having to fight battles with the inhabitants. (See the [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Book of Joshua]] in the Bible). The Jewish people lived for hundreds of years under Judges (See the [[Judges|Book of Judges]] in the Bible) before forming a monarchy under their first King, [[Saul]] in 1050 B.C. Israel expanded under [[King David|David]] from 1010 to 970 B.C. and then reached its height under [[Solomon]] from 970 to 930 B.C. With the death of Solomon the united kingdom of Israel split in two with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin forming their own nation, [[Kingdom of Judah|Judah]]. (See [[I Samuel]], [[II Samuel]], [[I Kings]], [[I Chronicles]] in the Bible)

The first King of Israel was [[Jeroboam I]], who made his capital at [[Shechem]] until it was replaced by [[Samaria]] under [[Omri]]. Almost immediately the Israeli kings "did evil in the sight of the Lord" and turned away from the Lord God. Although they were larger and more powerful than Judah, they fell more quickly due to their apostacy. Israel continued being ruled by kings until its conquest by [[Assyria]] in 722 B.C. Judah had a number of kings who did what was right in God's sight, but eventually they too were turning away. They continued as an independent nation until 586 B.C. when they fell to the [[Babylonians]]. Both of these conquests led to many Jews being deported from the land of Israel. While under [[Persian empire|Persian]] rule after the Babylonians had fallen to the Persians, the Jews were allowed to return and rebuild their temple (520 - 516 B.C.)<ref>An Encyclopedia of World History, Kingsport Press, 1948</ref> In the 400's B.C. they began to return to God as well, showing a reverence for Him that was often lacking during the time they had their own kingdom. Still under Persian rule and with their blessing, [[Nehemiah]] came to rebuild the walls of [[Jerusalem]], a position that was bitterly opposed by the other peoples living on the land. The Jews had to stand guard as they built.

When [[Alexander the Great]] swept through Israel in 332 B.C., Persian rule had ended to be replaced by [[Macedone|Greek]]. Upon Alexander's death in 323 B.C. there was a fight for power among his generals and subordinates, which led to Israel coming under control of the Ptolemies, the Greek leaders of Egypt. The Jews were treated leniently until the [[Seleucids]], the Greek leaders of Syria, pushed back the Ptolemies and took over Israel in 198 B.C. The Seleucids were not as lenient and under [[Antiochus IV]] (175 to 164 B.C.) conditions worsened considerably. In 168 B.C. Judaism was declared to be illegal and a pig was sacrified on the altar of the Jewish temple; the Jews revolted under the [[Maccabees]] and fought a prolonged [[guerrilla war]] until their eventual religious independence in 164 B.C. Complete acknowledgement of independence from the Seleucids didn't come until 142 B.C. when Roman pressure helped them to make the decision to let Israel go. This independence would last until 63 B.C., when infighting caused the Jews to ask for [[Roman]] intervention. Rome stopped the fighting, but Israel came under Roman rule as the province of [[Palestine]]. The Jewish people would not have their independence again for over 2000 years. It was under this state of Roman control that [[Jesus]] was born around 4 B.C. Three revolts against Roman rule by the Jews, the first in 66 A.D., the next in 115 A.D., and the last in 132 A.D. took place, and failed. After the failure of the third, the Romans forced the Jews to leave Israel thus beginning the [[diaspora]], the dispersal of the Jews from the land of Palestine.

By the fifth century the inhabitants of the region were Christianized, under the [[Byzantine Empire]], a situation which continued until the [[Arab]] invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries. The Arabs brought with them the [[Islam]]ic faith which, due to its many similarities with [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]] and the social advantages it brought, was gradually adopted by the population. However, Jewish and Christian citizens continued to live in the region, in relative peace, until the Crusades.

The [[Crusades]] saw part of the Holy Lands reconquered from Islam in the name of Christianity. The Crusader states were temporary before being conquered by Islam again with the fall of the last Crusader state in 1290. First the [[Mamelukes]] controlled the area, then starting in the early 1500's, the [[Ottoman Turks]] conquered the region. [[World War I]] saw a British victory over the Ottoman's and the region came under British mandate of Palestine in 1920.

The British and late Ottoman authorities permitted the resettlement of Jews from Europe, many of them looking to establish a Jewish state in the region, part of a movement called [[Zionism]]. In the last years of British mandate the number and strength of the Jews in [[Palestine]] increased, with many adopting extremely radical tactics to achieve their goal of an independent Jewish state. Terrorist organizations such as Irgun and Lehi attacked British and Arab targets, killing civilians in the process. Britain's occupation became too expensive and they handed control to the [[United Nations]] to sort out a solution.

==Modern Nation==
[[Image:Zion.jpg|right|300px]]
The recreation of the State of Israel in 1948 was preceded by more than 50 years of efforts to re-establish a sovereign state as a homeland for the Jewish nation. These efforts were initiated by Theodore Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, and were given added impetus by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which asserted the British Government's support for the recreation of a Jewish homeland in roughly its [[Promised Land|original position]], which was then known as Palestine.

In the years following [[World War I]], Palestine became a British Mandate and the number of Jews returning to their homeland steadily increased, as did violence between Palestine's Jewish and Arab communities. Mounting British efforts to restrict this immigration were countered by international support for Jewish national aspirations following the near-extermination of European Jewry by the [[Nazis]] during [[World War II]]. This support led to the 1947 UN partition plan, which would have divided Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under UN administration.

[[Image:Israel48.jpg|thumb|400px|left]] On May 14, 1948, immediately after the British quit Palestine, the State of Israel was proclaimed and was immediately invaded by armies from neighboring Arab states, which rejected the UN partition plan. This conflict, Israel's War of Independence, was concluded by armistice agreements between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in 1949 and resulted in a 50% increase in Israeli territory. The U.S. immediately recognized Israel and gave large amounts of financial aid through private sources, but did not at this time send military aid.

In 1956, French, British, and Israeli forces engaged Egypt in response to its nationalization of the Suez Canal and blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Israeli forces withdrew in March 1957, after the United Nations established the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Gaza Strip and Sinai. This war resulted in no territorial shifts and was followed by several years of terrorist incidents and retaliatory acts across Israel's borders.

In June 1967, Israeli forces [[Six Day War|struck targets in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria]] in response to Egyptian President Nasser's ordered withdrawal of UN peace keepers from the Sinai Peninsula and the buildup of Arab armies along Israel's borders. After 6 days, all parties agreed to a cease-fire, under which Israel retained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank of the Jordan River, and East Jerusalem. On November 22, 1967, the Security Council adopted Resolution 242, the "land for peace" formula, which called for the establishment of a just and lasting peace based on Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 in return for the end of all states of belligerency, respect for the sovereignty of all states in the area, and the right to live in peace within secure, recognized boundaries.

The following years were marked by continuing violence across the Suez Canal, punctuated by the 1969-70 [[War of Attrition]] between Israel and Egypt. On October 6, 1973--Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement), the armies of Syria and Egypt [[Yom Kippur War|launched an attack against Israel]]. Although the Egyptians and Syrians initially made significant advances, Israel was able to push the invading armies back beyond the 1967 cease-fire lines by the time the United States and the Soviet Union helped bring an end to the fighting. In the UN Security Council, the United States supported Resolution 338, which reaffirmed Resolution 242 as the framework for peace and called for peace negotiations between the parties.

In the years that followed, sporadic clashes continued along the cease-fire lines but guided by the U.S., Egypt, and Israel continued negotiations. In November 1977, Egyptian President [[Anwar Sadat]] made a historic visit to Jerusalem, which opened the door for the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace summit convened at Camp David by [[Jimmy Carter|President Carter]]. These negotiations led to a 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, pursuant to which Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1982, signed by President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menahem Begin of Israel.

In the years following the 1948 war, Israel's border with Lebanon was quiet relative to its borders with other neighbors. After the expulsion of Palestinian fighters from Jordan in 1970 and their influx into southern Lebanon, however, hostilities along Israel's northern border increased and Israeli forces crossed into Lebanon. After passage of Security Council Resolution 425, calling for Israeli withdrawal and the creation of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon peacekeeping force (UNIFIL), Israel withdrew its troops.

In June 1982, following a series of cross-border terrorist attacks and the attempted assassination of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K., Israel invaded Lebanon to fight the forces of Yasser Arafat's [[Palestine Liberation Organization]] (PLO). The PLO withdrew its forces from Lebanon in August 1982. Israel, having failed to finalize an agreement with Lebanon, withdrew most of its troops in June 1985 save for a residual force which remained in southern Lebanon to act as a buffer against attacks on northern Israel. These remaining forces were completely withdrawn in May 2000 behind a UN-brokered delineation of the Israel-Lebanon border (the Blue Line). Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon continued to attack Israeli positions south of the Blue Line in the Sheba Farms/Har Dov area of the Golan Heights.

The victory of the U.S.-led coalition in the [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]] of 1991 opened new possibilities for regional peace. In October 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union convened the Madrid Conference, in which Israeli, Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Palestinian leaders laid the foundations for ongoing negotiations designed to bring peace and economic development to the region. Within this framework, Israel and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993, which established an ambitious set of objectives relating to a transfer of authority from Israel to an interim Palestinian authority. Israel and the PLO subsequently signed the Gaza-Jericho Agreement on May 4, 1994, and the Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities on August 29, 1994, which began the process of transferring authority from Israel to the Palestinians.

On October 26, 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a historic peace treaty, witnessed by President Clinton. This was followed by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat's signing of the historic Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on September 28, 1995. This accord, which incorporated and superseded previous agreements, broadened Palestinian self-government and provided for cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians in several areas.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995, by a right-wing Jewish radical, bringing the increasingly bitter national debate over the peace process to a climax. Subsequent Israeli governments continued to negotiate with the PLO resulting in additional agreements, including the Wye River and the Sharm el-Sheikh memoranda. However, a summit hosted by President Clinton at Camp David in July 2000 to address permanent status issues--including the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, final security arrangements, borders, and relations and cooperation with neighboring states--failed to produce an agreement.

Following the failed talks, widespread violence broke out in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza in September 2000. In April 2001 the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact Finding Committee, commissioned by the October 2000 Middle East Peace Summit and chaired by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, submitted its report, which recommended an immediate end to the violence followed by confidence-building measures and a resumption of security cooperation and peace negotiations. Building on the Mitchell report, In April 2003, the Quartet (the U.S., UN, European Union (EU), and the Russian Federation) announced the "roadmap," a performance-based plan to bring about two states, Israel and a democratic, viable Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

Despite the promising developments of spring 2003, violence continued and in September 2003 the first Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), resigned after failing to win true authority to restore law and order, fight terror, and reform Palestinian institutions. In response to the deadlock, in the winter of 2003-2004 Prime Minister Sharon put forward his Gaza disengagement initiative, proposing the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza as well as parts of the northern West Bank. President Bush endorsed this initiative in an exchange of letters with Prime Minister Sharon on April 14, 2004, viewing Gaza disengagement as an opportunity to move towards implementation of the two-state vision and begin the development of Palestinian institutions. In a meeting in May 2004 the Quartet endorsed the initiative, which was approved by the Knesset in October 2004.

The run-up to disengagement saw a flurry of diplomatic activity, including the February 2005 announcement of Lieutenant General William Ward as U.S. Security Coordinator; the March 2005 Sharon-Abbas summit in Sharm el-Sheikh; the return of Egyptian and Jordanian ambassadors to Israel; and the May 2005 appointment of former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn as Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement to work for a revitalization of the Palestinian economy after disengagement. Wolfensohn's direct involvement spurred Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the Gaza ‘crossings" at Karni and Erez, on the demolition of settler homes, water, electricity, and communications infrastructure issues, as well as other issues related to the Palestinian economy.

On August 15, 2005, Israel began implementing its disengagement from the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli Defense Forces completed their withdrawal, including the dismantling of 17 settlements, on September 12. After broad recognition for Prime Minister Sharon's accomplishment at that fall's UN General Assembly, international attention quickly turned to efforts to strengthen Palestinian governance and the economy in Gaza. The United States brokered a landmark Agreement on Movement and Access between the parties in November 2005 to facilitate further progress on Palestinian economic issues. However, the terrorist organization Hamas--building on popular support for its "resistance" to Israeli occupation and a commitment to clean up the notorious corruption of the Palestinian Authority (PA)--took a majority in the January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) elections, with Hamas leader Ismail Haniya as Prime Minister. The Israeli leadership pledged not to work with a Palestinian government in which Hamas had a role.

Shortly following Hamas' PLC victory, the Quartet--comprised of the United States, European Union, United Nations. and Russia--outlined three basic principles the Hamas-led PA must meet in order for the U.S. and the international community to reengage with the PA: renounce violence and terror, recognize Israel, and respect previous agreements, including the roadmap. The Hamas-led PA government rejected these principles, resulting in a Quartet statement of "grave concern" on March 30, 2006 and the suspension of U.S. assistance to the PA, complete prohibition on U.S. Government contacts with the PA, and prohibition of unlicensed transactions with the PA government. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under the leadership of PLO Chairman and PA President Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), by contrast, remained consistently committed to the Quartet principles.

Despite several negotiated cease-fires between Hamas and Fatah, violent clashes in the Gaza Strip--and to a lesser extent in the West Bank--were commonplace between December 2006 and February 2007 and resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries. In an attempt to end the intra-Palestinian violence, the King of Saudi Arabia invited Palestinian rivals to Mecca, and on February 9, 2007, Abbas and Hamas leader Haniya agreed to the formation of a Palestinian national unity government and a cessation of violence. Hamas' rejectionist policies and violent behavior continued despite the formation of the national unity government.

In June 2007, Hamas effectively orchestrated a violent coup in Gaza. Hamas also launched scores of Qassam rockets into southern Israel in an attempt to involve Israel in the Hamas-Fatah conflict. On June 14, Palestinian Authority President Mahoud Abbas exercised his lawful authority by declaring a state of emergency, dissolving the national unity government, and replacing it with a new government with Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister.

The new Palestinian Authority government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad has no elements controlled by Hamas. The new government claims they are dedicated to peace and the Quartet principles and has been embraced politically and financially by the international community, including Israel, mainly because of the far worse alternative that Hamas represent.

==See also==
*[[Israel Tourism]]
*[[Jewish philosophy]]
*[[Israelophobia]]
*[[Gaza Strip]]
*[[Gallery of Jewish Painting]]

==References==

<References/>

== External links ==

*[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
*[http://israelemb.org/kids/ Welcome to Israel (for Kids)]
*[http://www.usy.org/yourusy/israel/support/ Ways to Support Israel]
*[http://www.jewart.com/2007/11/07/jewish-art-in-history/ Jewish art in history]
*[http://www.jewishmuseum.org.uk/collections/photoarchive.asp Photographic Archive] The Jewish Museum.

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source: [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm]

[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]
[[Category:Biblical Places]]
[[Category:Israel]]
[[Category:Zionism]]