Talk:Judeo-Christo-Islamic

Hello, I have edited some of the discussion below to remove intemperate language. My hope is that readers will find discussion a bit friendlier here now. The original material can be found in Archive 1. Silver Maple

-

I believe it is best to list such terms alphabetically. Susan Mason

There is precendent for that. - &#35918&#30505

This page should be deleted. There is no Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition to speak of. Each of these three different religions has very different views on theology, faith, ethics, religious law, and inter-faith relations. Further, there is no content to this supposed article at all. RK

This page obviously does have content-are u sure your browser is working correctly? Christianity and Islam both derive from Judaism (or at least claim to), its kinda hard for me to see how there is not Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition. They all have very similar views on how there is a God and he wants people to be good and stuff. Susan Mason


 * Susan, there is no content here. Just links to other articles. And the religions are different. Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia.


 * The content here links to other articles, lists are very useful. At some point Im sure there will be more text here as well, the wiki is a work in progress. Susan Mason


 * They are not the same... but they share a lineage.. and Abraham in particular... not to mention the ten commandments. Idolatry is the subject of one of the most fundamental commandments. I would add that its better to disrespect differences than it is to disrespect principles held in common. Im not typing to a brick wall am I? - &#35918&#30505

Your claims about Islam are grossly false; they most certainly do not have the Ten Commandments anywhere in Quran. In fact, Muslims view both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as deliberate lies, that were made by Jews and Christians to hide the true word of God! Your claims are simply fictional. Your position is thus unsupportable. RK

I am often amazed at how similar fundamental christianity, judaism, and islam all are. Susan Mason


 * They are not the same at all. These are three different religions with very different points of view. Your personal wishes are not facts.


 * Both of you: slinging "A is true" and "No, B is true" renders the "discuss this page" page useless -- this is not a discussion. Can't either of you support your opinions, even badly?  For my part, I'm inclined to think there probably could be something here, but until there is, it should redirect to Abrahamic religion. Tuf-Kat


 * I agree that one should support one's position. Susan has been unable to do so, while I have. Further, as you can see for yourself, most of the Wikipedia community has already agreed with my point of view. See the article on the Judeo-Christian tradition.  RK

We have stated that christianity and islam are derived from judaism, what more support do we need? And of course, Abrahamic religion is completely acceptable. Susan Mason


 * Toker's assessment of the situation is crystal.. though I would not be hasty in implementing the suggestion of a redirect. And Robert, your just plain wrong about Islam. I suggest this as a primer http://www.alislam.org/books/study-of-islam/books.html- - &#35918&#30505


 * Muslims do not study the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament; they teach that these works were deliberately corrupted, and contain lies about God. Muslims thus teach that the only reliable truth about God can be found in the Quran. RK


 * Are you arguing that Islam is not derived from Judaism? Susan Mason
 * No, RK claimed that Muslims revere the Old & New Testaments but believe it has been altered and corrupted. Thus, the only true source of the word of God is the Koran.  What should be here, if anything, would be the ideas that the Koran and both Testaments agree on. Tuf-Kat


 * Thank you, Tuf-Kat. Islam is not really derived from Judaism. That would be a distortion of its true historical origins, which lies in an original religion that drew from Arab paganism, parts of Judaism, and parts of Christianity, and which created its own theology. RK


 * The more I think about this, the more I feel this should be redirected to Abrahamic religion, since it could then provide info on Rastafarianism and Baha'ai and how all five are similar and different (plus any more small Abrahamic religions I don't know about, if any). Tuf-Kat

At best, "Christo-Islamic-Judaic tradition" is an ideological construct used by a small group of people towards particular ends. It certainly is not an axample of good/current scholarship on comparative religion. At best, the article should explore who introduced the term. and why, and how its use has spread. Slrubenstein


 * I agree with RK and Slrubenstein. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three distinct religions, with different traditions. They have different holy scriptures, although Judaism and Christianity agree on many of the same ones, and some "Old Testament"/Tanakh stories are (I think) retold in the Quran. Within "traditional" Christianity as understood by Catholicism and Orthodoxy, "Tradition" means what Christ has taught the Church, and what the Church has taught successive generations of Christians. I'm sure you would agree that this tradition is quite different from the tradition handed down to today's Jews, and the tradition handed down to today's muslims. Yes, there are some things in common, but that does not make them the same tradition. I would even argue that Christianity no longer shares a single tradition since the Great Schism, and certainly not since the Protestant Reformation, although all these traditions have much more in common with each other than they do with Judaism or Islam. Wesley 17:08 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

It is best to redirect to Abrahamic religions. You cannot deny that when compared to Druidism or Wiccanism or Hinduism, that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are clearly related and of the same family. Susan Mason
 * The very notion of "related" and "family" are ideological and reflect a very particular approach to the study of religion (as is the notion "Abrahamic religion"). Perhaps there are some legitimate scholars of comparative religion who have made this claim.  If so -- please enlighten us and provide the names and citations. Slrubenstein


 * How about you name a scholar whom you feel is authoritative and we'll call him up and see if he thinks Christianity and Islam are historically derived from Judaism. Did Jesus read the Torah? Was Muhammed aware of the Christian worldview? Have Jews ever sat down and talked with Christians and Muslims?  Susan Mason


 * A great many Jews are involved in inter-faith study and dialogue, myself included. Maybe you should as well. RK

Judaism as we know it developed around the same time as Christianity. Of course Mohammed was "aware" of Christianity; that doesn't mean that Christianity and Islam belong ot some "family." Mohammed and other Islamic leaders were familiar with lots of stuff! Have Jews sat down with Christians and Muslims? Of course! But that doesn't make them members of the same family -- Jews have sat down with stoics and Zoroastrianists too. In any event, all the scholars that I know of (Wellhausen, Vermes, Fredricksen) who see a link between Judaism and Christianity emphasize the break between the two, and call attention to the non-Jewish influences on Christianity. You might as well just claim that Mithraism is the "father" religion of Christianity. Now I repeat my request: name your sources. Slrubenstein


 * But your sources (Wellhausen, Vermes, Fredricksen) appear to be agreeing with me that there is a distinct and noteworthy relationship between Judaism and Christianity or else they wouldnt be talking about a break or rift in the first place! Nobody talks about the "break" between Shintoism and Shamanism because there was never much of a connection to begin with. Wasn't Jesus a Jew? And don't Christians consider the Jewish "bible" to be holy? And don't Islamic people consider the Jewish and Christian bibles to be holy? Susan Mason


 * Yes -- but these facts do not therefore mean that there is a "tradition." I think scholars who jump from these facts to construct some Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition are doing so too hastily, and for ideological reasons; the supposition of the "tradition" invariably distorts our understanding of the very specifics you mention.  By the way, Wellhausen, Vermes, and Fredricksen are not "my" sources -- they belong to everyone!  But if you reject them please tell us why, and please tell us what sources you prefer to rely on for such articles. Slrubenstein


 * First off, they are your sources as long as you are the only one bringing them up during this discussion, seondly, I do support them. Please refer me to where they specifically state that there is no such thing as a Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition, something which you have already agreed is a scholary understanding of the religions:


 * SLR: "I think scholars who jump from these facts to construct some Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition are doing so too hastily"


 * obviously then scholars do believe in such a tradition, although, of course, not all scholars feel this way. I am sure any discussion of the subject will benefit from the opinions of Wellhausen, Vermes, and Fredricksen, so I urge you to find relevant passages. Susan Mason


 * They never refer to a "Judeo Christian" tradition to my knowledge, that's my point. But for the moment, I really would like to know your sources.  You have added much more content to this article than I have, so your sources are more important. Slrubenstein

I haven't added anything to this article. There isn't anything in this article. What are you talking about? Susan Mason
 * You are right -- my mistake, and I apologize. Kaufman: The Religion of Israel, Wellhausen: Prolegomena to a history of the Religion of Israel, Fredriksen: From Jesus to Christ, Vermes: Jesus the Jew. Slrubenstein

There is some basic similarity between these religions, are they not monotheistic? Do they not have many of the same figures held in positions of holy reverence? Do they not have taboos, morals, and sins in common? Do they not have geographical and historical similarities? Susan Mason


 * Susan was right, there is no real concent to the article, and I checked the constituent articles and she hasn't been making many real substantive contributions to those pages either. It is possible that she is using these talk pages to educate herself.  I do think you are raising a very valid point about not promoting our own views through the contents of articles, all I am saying is that in this instance Susan is not the main culprit. Slrubenstein

Sheesh! I never even realized the backwards order of the names. Judeo-Christo-Islamic is proper, as it is inline with the order of &quot;inheritance&quot; as far as Abrahamic religions go. - #35918&amp;#30505&lt; Why not use alphabetical? This is definitely not a common use term, and otherwise there will be argument about who gets to go first. In the future, on similar subjects, there may be argument about which actually came first. Its best to use alphabetica. Susan Mason


 * If it is not a common term -- indeed, if it is not used in the literature and is scarcely heard of outside of Wikipedia, then it does not merit a Wikipedia page. An encyclopedia is not a place to publish a contributor's original theories or favorite idiosyncratic expressions; it is a place to collect together knowledge that is established elsewhere in the world.


 * Real-World Data: The word "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" has 37 Google hits. The permutation which has the most is "Judeo-Islamic-Christian" at 73. For comparison, "Abrahamic religion" has 26 800 and "Abrahamic faith" has 16 800.


 * This suggests that none of the JCI/JIC/CJI expressions has significant currency when compared to "Abrahamic". Since "JCI" and "Abrahamic" both admittedly denote the same idea (the common heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) I propose that "Abrahamic" is the correct term for Wikipedia to use to denote that idea. --FOo

I agree. Susan Mason

I might agree, if Abrahamic had treatment for the uses of these terms... however, the idea of exploring links between religions is not invalid is it? how do we denote these? - &#35918&#30505

Bear in mind, that eventually we here on the wikipedia are going to come to understand something new and original, its inevitable. The fact religions are similar is a good place to start, I think. Afterall, it isn't my POV, its God's POV, and God's POV is NPOV because he is God and he can do that. Susan Mason


 * Dontcha go getting all nUtTy, uNitaRIAn, or mUShy on us now SuE... - &#35918&#30505 ps.: "And if you think peace is a common goal, that goes to show how little you know...."

lol Susan Mason

Whew, that's a lot of arguing. My ignorant self proposes the following:

Regarding names, I suggest the alphabetical, in order to be the most neutral. All combinations (Judeo-Christo-Islamic, Judeo-Islamic-Christian, etc.) can redirect to the alphabetical article.

As this page is named X-X-X_tradition, let's fill it with a list of things that all three religions have in common (i.e. regardless of their relatedness or non-relatedness). We all know at least one: monotheism. For some more, try this Google query. If after some time, it is found that there is very little in common between them, then we can disregard this as a separate topic and redirect to Abrahamic religions. Can everyone agree on this? (I hope so) -Fagan

nonsense... appreciate the concern, but the issue of titleship, despite the jabbering, is itself not a great controversy... If we were to continue in the use... it wouldnt be any less political to change it to CIJ - anyone who considers the order to be paramount in terms of vanity - is not going to be happy in any case... "abrahamic" seems like a solution, but that context is not a comparative religion term in itself... It would need a little treatment, thats all im saying... - &#35918&#30505

actually RK strongly disputes that this article is even valid. He says it is absurd to suggest that these religions are similar. Abrahamic religion is an article on this subject, as are the pages which this one links to. And a decision to list things alphabetically seems really neutral to me. This term is not in common usage, and so whatever google says is the most popular variant on this is hardly very important. And I do think Abrahamic religion would be acceptable to most anyone Susan Mason


 * Ms. "Susan Mason" is incorrect about me. She claims that I wrote it is "absurd to suggest that these religions are similar" ? I never wrote any such thing. In fact, I helped edit two articles on Islamic philosophy and Jewish philosophy which give examples of how they are similar!.  RK

He's right to point out differences, and hes keen to, but even he has to back off from bugus notion that there is no relationship at all worthy of comparing... Either your misinterpreting him, (and making too big a deal of what he thinks) or hes wrong... It matters not either way. - &#35918&#30505

Read Islamic philosophy and say there is 'no relationship', clearly there is, and it was explored long ago. Also read modern Islamic philosophy and ask if there are any parallels to modern Jewish or Christian thought. Clearly there are. Then, from an historical point of view, read early Muslim history and ask 'did something similar happen in other writing-based religions that permitted philosophy and theology to mix?' Some would argue clearly yes. Emphasizing the central role of the Prophet Abraham is certainly a good move, as it allows the smaller religions that accept this tradition to be brought in and their insights examined. The J-C-I, J-I-C, stuff is just foolish, avoid it.

A "similarity" is not the same thing as a "tradition" -- the two issues should be treated separately. There is an article on Judeo-Christian tradition, which among other things describes the construction of the "tradition." There is also an article on "Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity," to give a broader view of the relationship between the two. I suggest we handle this topic the same way: any claim about a Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition" is the same thing as "Abrahamic religion" and should be incoprorated into that article. A more general discussion of similarities and differences between these religions can be in articles "Comparing and COntrasting Christianity and Islam" and "Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Islam," "Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Zoroastrianism," "Comparing and COntrasting Christianity and Mithraism," etc. Slrubenstein


 * Good points. RK 02:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Unfortunately most responses and statement contained here are half-correct at best. ANYONE (not just a learned scholar) that has ever taken a course on comparative religions, or a history of religion, has seen the migration and progress of human beings across the globe and the religions that followed. The Abrahamic religions (There are only three (b'hai and Rastafarians are not directly linked to Abraham so the lineage is sketchy here) are connected by the covenant Yahweh made with the descendants of Abraham, to wit all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) claim. Islam constructs respect for any monotheistic religion with a holy text, Judaism respects Islam and Christianity, but believes that they have been misguided and have not interpreted G-d's message correctly, only Christianity has deep rooted beliefs against Islam and Judaism.  Now, these are the religions' "official" standings the ideas, beliefs and constructs of individuals of these religions vary greatly (as shown here).

An ACADEMIC dialog should come from ACADEMIA not religious fuver...

One should do due diligence before making brash statements about the connection between these three religions; yes they are very different, but alas, the religions have had close to 1500 years to diverge...

How about some definition?
Okay, so the article addresses how the term is used, who uses it, and why they use it. Fine, but for God's sake, what does the term mean? This may be obvious to you, but it's certainly foggy to me! Omphaloscope &raquo; talk 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. However, the only way to respond to your pointis for someone to find verifiable sources, and I wonder whether anyone who has worked on this article has done the necessary research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonnotable
This seems to be a nonnotable, pseudo-historical attempt at referring to Abrahamic religion. I propose we redirect to that, as it is much longer, and more accurate. KI 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pecher Talk 09:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)