Talk:1988 Hamas charter/Archive 1

FAIR and ADL
This editor is removing sourced material from the article and claiming that it is not sourced or not relevant.The pieces that he has removed are well sourced and relevant.Here:He is claiming that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is a non reputable source which is incorrect and the piece he deleted is actually from AFP press agency which is also a reputable source.(AFP, 3/11/06) He has also removed a piece from the Anti Defamation League saying they support Israel for no good reason as well.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you used to support the statement "Hamas do not use the Charter on their website and prefer to use their election manifesto to put forth their agenda" actually say anything of the sort.
 * Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is not a WP:RS as far as I can tell, and anyway the section you added is not only a copyright violation since you copied it verbatim from that site, it is editorializing (not a surprise considering the source).
 * What ADL is or isn't is not relevant to the Hamas charter. Please explain why you think it belongs in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am reporting you for deleting sourced material.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken this to your talk page inline with wikipedia policy first. Owain the 1st (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your report. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK being as you do not want to discuss it here or your talk page inline with wikipedia policy you leave me no choice.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have discussed it here. You have not addressed a single one of the points I made above. But go ahead and report me. Don't forget about WP:BOOMERANG though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No you have not discussed it all you have done is say that is not a reputable source with nothing to back up your claim and you have deleted 3 links that back up the line about Hamas and you have also deleted the bit about ADF and you had no good reason there as well.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One more time:
 * None of the sources you put in the article says that "Hamas do not use the Charter on their website" or that they "prefer to use their election manifesto to put forth their agenda". If you think they do, please provide the relevant quotes.
 * FAIR looks to me like an activist site, not a WP:RS. If you think otherwise, please explain your rationale. Even if it was RS, you can't copy whole chunks verbatim, that's a WP:COPYVIO. The language you copied from there was editorializing.
 * This is not an article about ADL. Please explain why you think information about ADL that is not directly relevant to the Hamas charter belongs in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Owain, you see to be a new editor. I think you would do yourself some good if you familiarized yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially when editing in controversial areas. I can show you a few places to look, if you like. IronDuke 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Similar to Fatah?
Owain, one of your edits says: Instead they have moved to a more secular stance similar to Fatah.[7]. I found no reference to similarity with Fatah in that article. Could you please show where this is said, or revise that statement. Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought it came from that link, anyway I cannot find it now.You can delete it if you want to.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lions Club and Rotary
Should mention the declaration of jihad against the Lions Club and Rotary... AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

POV statments
In the section titled as "Relevance of the Charter in the 21st century". We have:
 * British diplomat, saying it was never been adopted since Hamas as part of their political platform.
 * Some guy from American University comments on the Charter that it should be amended.
 * Some US writer say it should be ignored.


 * Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh. Rants about the charter being used as propaganda tool and fear mongering. With a very vague statement that "Hamas has changed its views with time"(HOW?!).
 * Statement that "In a further move away from their charter Hamas" --further? I have yet to see any detail on any move. It is followed by a vague political statement about recognizing Israel not being their call. and more WP:SYN BS : "movement’s increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domain—reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas." -- which doesn't effect the charter per se in anyway.

This article about 'Hamas'(political and armed wings) 'Covenant', this section is about its Relevance in 21st century. But, I can't find one single direct statement by a HAMAS(not some dude commenting on it) official concerning the 'Hamas Covenant' in it, as to being irrelevant or any specific changes that has been made to it. What I see is a lot of propagandizing and POV statements related to Hamas political platform - wrong article! this whole section should be heavily trimmed if not removed. --PLNR (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the more prudent and forward-looking individuals in the Hamas leadership (especially those actually located in the West Bank or Gaza, as opposed to looking on from abroad) know that the covenant is more of a liability than an asset at this point, but also that there's also no chance of repealing it or significantly amending it unless and until the opinions of Hamas' followers or support base or mass membership also change very significantly. That's why you get various spin and commentary vaguely and airily dismissing the importance of the charter... AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is why I have no problem with something like this quote from the lead: In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons." - Which is relevant and appropriate in the context of this article\section, unlike everything that is currently in that section, which serve as a huge platform for accusation as opposed to any direct comment on it. --PLNR (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I made several changes to the section inline with what was discussed above. I kept for now the last section(I am not too certain about the sources maybe someone can come up with something relevant and it would mean change to the lead, so i'll wait for comments), but as it is IMO it should be also removed. Because Hamas political views doesn't effect the text of their Covenant(certainly the views of skeptical don't). No more than any views/statements/whatever on slavery effected the text of the US Constitution until the Thirteenth Amendment. Also the statement about recognition, its indirect weasel statement addressing the demands put forth during the 2006 sanctions, not anything I can see in the charter articles. --PLNR (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Change to lead
Wickey-nl concerning this edit, you made massive change to the lead and content\source removal. Can you explain which statements not supported by the refs? because I couldn't find anything that couldn't be adjusted with minor wording changes and most of it was per source.--PLNR (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The charter ... calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[1] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.


 * This sounds too much like an interpretation of what appears to be a pamphlet about Islam, with a lot of rhetoric against Zionism in general. This is not worked out in the article, thus does not belong in the lead. WP:LEAD The references are fake, as they only reproduce parts of the Covenant. MidEast Web does not clarify about it; fas.org is a dubious source.


 * The quotations do not belong in the lead and are only to set the tone. Citing single articles in the lead is WP:UNDUE.

The Covenant identifies Hamas as one of the wings of the Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. It promotes Islamic rules in every inch of Palestine, and the struggle against the Jews and Zionism
 * As a general description we could say:


 * Per Article 2, 6, 11, 14 and 34; and per Intro, Article 14 and 32 --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You see why I say you make misleading edits and forced to double check them. There is miles apart between the reason you stated in the summary and your current explanation. As for the current lead. to be honest I also think the wording are a bit POVish. I have no idea if MidEast Web and fas.org are WP:RS, but I do know that we need some WP:RS to summaries the article content, you can't base it on your interpretation of a primary source, which is original research.(although thank you for trying to come up with a constructive solution)--PLNR (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No discussion about the need of sources. I say that they do not add something to the first one of Avalon. MidEast Web is a moderate source and certainly RS, albeit clearly written from Israeli view. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, Avalon has the original text, as such it is a primary source and making interpretation based on it is original research. So any WP"RS is better than that. I can improve the wording a bit, but I prefer that we can find another WP:RS to balance thing, before I waste time on it. --PLNR (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

humanism and tolerance (recent edits)
It seems pretty clear that the humanism and tolerance don't apply to the targets of eternal jihad (such as the Jew hiding behind the gharqad tree and the Lions Club and Rotary). The phrase "Under the wing of Islam" also means that non-Muslims can be "tolerated" only if they accept subordinate dhimmi status (i.e. having no political power and with lesser rights and paying more taxes than Muslims"). AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The same dhimmi status which most of the Christians of Mosul have now left their homes and property behind rather than accept... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

broken URL
Link 13 is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.173.65 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Content section
This section is the result of a WP:OR given it is sourced from the Hamas Covenant itself. It should be deleted. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a brief overview summary. It would probably have to exist in some form in any adequate article on this subject... AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Change to the quotation from article 7 of the Hamas Covenant
The original Arabic text uses singular imperative grammar, thus "Muslim" should be used instead of "Muslims." Also, Abdullah is a name meaning "servant/slave of God," which in this context has a lexical rather than nominal meaning; thus, to write "Abdullah" deprives an English speaking reader of lexical information. Here is the Arabic text in question: يا مسلم يا عبد الله، هذا يهودي خلفي تعال فاقتله "O Muslim, O Servant of God, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." -- 21:08, 23 October 2014‎ 68.191.148.45

NPOV part 2
In line with the many suggestions above to bring balance to the article, I have added a new section comparing the Hamas and Likud charters/platforms. I have read this article and also that on Likud, and since the Hamas charter is a topic of significant on-going interest and commentary, I was surprised that I could not find a comparison between the charters of these two opposing entities. The other option was to start an entirely new article devoted to such a comparison, but I feel that a 'merge' suggestion would soon be forthcoming if this were done. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "these two opposing entities". What on earth are you talking about?? That's non-sensical. Epeefleche (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

1) Please respect Wiki protocol by engaging in "Talk" debate before embarking on major edits in articles of a contentious nature.

2) May I also point out that section blanking is illegitimate and represents vandalism [WP:VAN]. A repeat offence will be reported.

3) Regarding your one-liner edit "justification" - 'original research', the section is fully referenced with most of the text having been taken directly from WP:RS publications such as The Guardian, Haaretz, Israeli government web sites, The Jerusalem Post, etc., so your comment is a pure fabrication. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. As it says above: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction." -- Kendrick7talk 12:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your revision as of 23:48, 1 January 2015 and your stated justification for deleting on entire section: “Your edit has been rejected. Try to gain consensus on talk BEFORE adding editorial bias. Several problems here, including WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:undue weight, an opinion column is not a reliable source to state facts.” Perhaps you should follow your own advice before becoming guilty of WP:VAN. You discussed ZERO in “Talk”. Unable to? Unwilling to? The problems that you say exist are all unsupported by any debate whatsoever, and provide no information which can be verified and/or refuted. Your justification is therefore empty. Many thanks to the editors who have agreed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire section is original research. The Likud-Hamas comparison vis-a-vis their evolution over time is not made in any of the sources cited. The single source that comes even remotely close to doing so (Haaretz opinion piece) is WP:FRINGE. Spud770 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting there's no valid basis for a comparison between the charters of the two politically right parties in this ongoing civil war? It seems to me, if we're not taking sides, that such a comparison between these two factions of the factions is an encyclopedic slam dunk per WP:COMMON. Maybe it shouldn't be here, but per our WP:PRESERVE policy, perhaps it should be split to a new article with at least a "see also" on both charters. I find it hard to believe your contention that no reliable sources have ever compared the opposing charters. What do you think? -- Kendrick7talk 04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is right: there is no basis. It is highly NPOV and synthetic to create such a section (as per WP:UNDUE).  And no, it is not vandalism to blank a section when one has good reasons to do so.  (And what on earth "civil war" are you talking about?) Mezigue (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for those contributions. I am still relatively new here and do not always understand what the best route is for providing encyclopaedic information. Regarding whether the Likud-Hamas charter comparison should be made ANYWHERE in Wiiki at all, I point to the high frequency of references to the Hamas charter as "proving" that the organization intends to wipe out Israel, irrespective of explanations by Mashal as to why the reference remains in the charter. The same denial of the right of the existence, in this case of a Palestinian state, exists in the earliest Likud platforms. I believe that these comparisons add value to the debate on the on-going conflict and offer a balanced comparison.

Are they all not WP:RS? Definitely not. References to the original documents setting out policy cannot possibly violate WP:RS. I ask if removing references to 'evolution of position' really constructively contributes to an understanding of either of these extremist groups and their ability and even willingness to change (in terms of WP:COMMON), simply because the citations are political analyses and not plain facts? After all, if there is a progressive change with time, is this not WP:COMMON evidence thereof? Instead I would suggest that Beinart's piece is a distinctly constructive contribution to our Wiki understanding. In a recent journal publication - the author also emphasizes the Hamas changes with time.

If there is consensus that Likud has not changed with time, then I am disposed to edits to the sub-section to reflect that.

Whether the section belongs here - I too have my doubts, because it could well mean that the same section should be added to Likud, and that is clumsy to say the least. So I await more elegant suggestions from the experienced editors. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You write ' I believe that these comparisons add value to the debate on the on-going conflict and offer a balanced comparison.' - and that's fine for you to believe so, but in order for that materiel to be included here, a reliable source has to be found making that comparison. Otherwise it is your original research. All Rows4 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hamas Covenant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525133139/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner:Offline 10:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Charter
The Hamas Charter (or Covenant), issued in 1988, outlined the organization's position on many issues at the time. It identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors". The charter states "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel. The Charter also asserts that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Zionists were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution. Among the charter's controversial statements is the following: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" The document also quotes Islamic religious texts to provide justification for fighting against and killing the Jews of Israel, presenting the Arab–Israeli conflict as an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam, adding that the only way to engage in this struggle between "truth and falsehood" is through Islam and by means of jihad, until victory or martyrdom. The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam. The charter states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they do not block Hamas's efforts.

New Charter version (2017)
A new version of the Charter is about to be released, or has just been released, in May 2017. See for example here: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-charter-1637794876. It omits some of the greatest hits of the old version, such as the jihad against the Lion's Club and Rotary, and the hadith of the Gharqad Tree, but it doesn't seem to be much of a peace document, unless you call basically endorsing the late 1970s "stages" theory a peaceful idea... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamas Covenant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111122811/http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html to http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hamas Covenant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127031443/http://lebanonwire.com/0603MLN/06031214MAF.asp to http://www.lebanonwire.com/0603MLN/06031214MAF.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222160228/http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1297 to http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1297

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

revised charter citation
Can someone add this source after "A new charter was issued by Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on 1 May 2017 in Doha"? --2001:8003:4023:D900:7C04:34E2:6179:8E12 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Origin
Who was the author of the 1988 Hamas Covenant? Who ratified it? Seems like everybody accepts the document as central to Hamas but how did it become so?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1994 book Islamic Fundamentalism in the West Bank and Gaza by Ziad Abu-Amr discusses the political circumstances surrounding the release of the charter, and the meaning of the charter, at some length, but doesn't indicate who wrote it. As for "ratification", if Ahmed Yassin was known to approve of it, then that seemed to be all the ratification it needed... AnonMoos (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)