Talk:People of the Book/Archive 3

'People of the Book' are the worst of all creatures
Primary Source


 * A staight-forward statement from all versions the Quran:  People of the Book are the worst of all creatures       Quran 98:6 Surah Al-Bayyina
 * and from the most widely disseminated Quran in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the English-speaking world Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Secondary Sources
 * Ibn-Kathir Tafsir
 * Al-Bayyina, v6. An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Qur'an page 152
 * Tafsirs, various

Contemporary Secondary Sources
 * The Explanation of Soorat Al-Bayyinah (Clear Evidence)
 * The Difference Between Islam and Islamism? Gatestone Institute

More Secondary Sources can be provided

Why should this reference People of the Book are the worst of all creatures not be included within Wikipedia ?

I have no objections to any RS contrary view being included.

Medeni-56 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Your first link answers your question. The actual quote is "Verily, those who [despite all evidence] are bent on denying the truth - [be they] from among the followers of earlier revelation or from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God - will find themselves in the fire of hell, therein to abide: they are the worst of all creatures". Or, parsed, "Verily, those who [despite all evidence] are bent on denying the truth ... are the worst of all creatures". So the verse is generic religious stuff: people who don't believe in our religion are bad people. It isn't specific to POTB at all; they are merely one example. This quote, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on ne of the Islam pages; I suggest you try adding it there. But even more I suggest: you're new here: why not try doing something uncontroversial and useful first William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Your above answer fails for two major reasons:


 * Reason 1


 * I linked to 62 Primary Source translations of Quran 98:6. All, but one, say that the People of the Book are the worst of creatures. You pick the one (Muhammad Asad) which does not use that term specifically to make your argument.  (That being the only argument you have provided) WP:CHERRY


 * FAIL ONE.


 * Reason 2
 * "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so". WP:NOR


 * "The Quran and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:PRIMARY. Therefore, they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage". MOS:ISLAMOR


 * FAIL TWO.


 * I given links to 8 reliable secondary sources (more can be supplied) which provide commentary on Quran 98:6, and its People of the Book being the worst of creatures.


 * You are welcome to use RS counter arguments in a Wiki article.


 * Medeni-56 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * from your own link, the verse is "Those who reject the truth among the People of the Book and the idolaters, will suffer the Fire of Hell, to remain there eternally, forever. They are the worst of creatures," (emphasis mine). I think you may be trolling. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the sources is that they are nearly all WP:BIASEDSOURCES; since they are mostly from islamic sources; and really they're all just translations with expanded glosses - so not that far off from being WP:PRIMARY themselves for the opinions of the translators. The only one that isn't is from the Gatestone Institute, a "far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles."... Given what I just say about their last source, this might indeed be a case of NONAZIS... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So far, this Talk Page discussion re the proposed addition to a Wikipedia article is said to be:
 * "ranting"
 * "possibly [from] a troll"
 * and
 * "might be a case of NONAZI" Wow !  In this respect you might read. CRYRACIST
 * I ignore those types of comments.


 * Further 1.
 * Respected - Seconday Sources - Islamic Commentaries and Tafsirs apparently can not be used as they are deemed, "nearly all WP:BIASEDSOURCES"  Biased ???


 * Further 2.
 * Any criticism of Islam is not accepted from anyone deemed as a critic of Islam.


 * To progress this matter, I propose using the two following citations in this Wiki article.
 * https://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/quran-262-and-quran-986.html
 * - RS: Check
 * - Secondary Source: Check
 * - Contemporary: Check
 * - Islamic perspective: Check
 * - Not all 'People of the Book' are the worst of creatures: Check


 * https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=98
 * - RS: Check
 * - Secondary Source: Check
 * - Contemporary: Check
 * - Islamic perspective: Check
 * - Not all 'People of the Book' are the worst of creatures: Check


 * Medeni-56 (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of your sources are no different from glosses (the examples more familiar to Western readers might be Bach's annotations to the Calov Bible or Biblical glosses - i.e. they are short re-interpretations of the existing text, but they are otherwise WP:PRIMARY for the opinion of their authors. As for the remaining sources here: the first one is an advocacy website; so yes, it is a biased, self-published source, and it's not acceptable for anything but the opinion of it's anonymous author. The second one is from The Islamic Foundation; which doesn't seem to be particularly authoritative. I don't quite make sense of it (too much arabic terms), but prima facie, it doesn't appear to support the unqualified statement which you attempted to put in the article. We should be trying to base this one academic sources, per WP:SOURCETYPES: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (as are most, if not all, of the other sources in the article). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * re. more authoritative sources: Jones, R. (Ed.). (2020). Fine Differences: The Al-Alwani Muslim-Christian Lectures 2010-2017. London; Washington: International Institute of Islamic Thought. doi:10.2307/j.ctv19prr4t ; particularly Chapter 9 by Seyed Amir Akrami, which has, putting this into context (source):

A particular verse commending Christians occurs in 57:27 where the Qur’an says: [...]

What is praised here is compassion and mercy in the hearts of the followers of Jesus, and also a moderate monasticism that they invented to seek God’s acceptance. Of course, there is also a mild criticism that they did not observe it correctly. But then again at the end there is a discriminating emphasis differentiating those who believed from many who were sinners. There seems to be no essential criticism but rather a rejection of sinfulness and perhaps of excess in their monastic life.

The whole of chapter 98 talks about “those who disbelieve among the people of the Book and the idolaters ” (98:1). Here again there is a clear distinction between the ahl al-kitāb in general and those among them who disbelieved. In his commentary, Tabataba’i explicates that the word min (from or among) is to be taken to mean discrimination or differentiation (tab‘īẓ) rather than description (tabyīn). In almost all relevant Qur’anic verses there is a ‘min’ which means ‘among’ them (ahl al-kitāb). In Chapter 98, which is discussed here, the ‘min’ occurs in the very first verse. The same distinction can also be seen in 59:2.


 * So, again, the statement which you put in the article is both textually and interpretatively wrong. Unless you have a counter-suggestion as to how to include it without the information being patently out of context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Summarizing all of the above - with a possible draft for Wiki POTB, with abbreviated citation-references:

The fate the People of the Book who reject Mahammad's prophethood

 * Muhammad's initial acceptance of the People of the Book was closely linked with his hope that Jews and Christians would believe in his divine mission. Only after he learned that both Jews and Christians rejected his claim to prophethood, with Christians holding on to the Trinity of God, Jesus’ sonship and his crucifixion, did Muhammad withdraw his earlier support.  Subsequently there is an increase in  Quranic injunctions to separate Islam from Christianity, and to warn Muslims against having close links with Christians. page 7


 * Those People of the Book, who were paganized as kafarū, page 630 along with the Mushrikun (those who worship anyone or anything besides Allah) are characterized in the Quran [98:6] as the worst of all creatures and are to be cast into hell. page 42
 * Medeni-56 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any objections / modifications to the above possible draft ?
 * Medeni-56 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Medeni-56 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course. It has the same problems as before, together with some irrelevant M-related stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WilliamC, please explain, "no news" ?


 * WilliamC, please explain, "same problems as before" ?
 * - RSources: Check
 * - Academic Sources: Check
 * - Secondary Sources: Check
 * - Contemporary Sources: Check
 * - Islamic perspective: Check
 * - Not all 'People of the Book' are the worst of creatures: Check


 * WilliamC, please explain, "some irrelevant M-related stuff" ?


 * Medeni-56 (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of your sources appear self-published. The Arabic terms should at the very least be translated into English-comprehensible equivalents (with the Arabic given in parenthesis or something). And it still flies in the face of what is already in the article (that Muslims were, usually and to a certain extent, tolerant to "People of the Book") and in other sources (such as the one I give above). You can't ignore quality sources which disagree with your perspective. Furthermore, you seem to be selectively picking from sources, and possibly engaging in WP:SYNTH. To take only one as an example, Cole (p. 630) has "Al-Bayyina 98:6 warns: 'Those who paganized [...]' Although it has been common for the later Muslim commentary tradition to identify this group as Jews, there is no a priori reason for this interpretation, and it is just as possible that they were Christians or pagan monotheists. In translating kafara in this phrase as “to paganize,” I am suggesting that in context it is speaking of a biblical community that allied politically with Muḥammad’s pagan enemies, and I suspect that the Quran views it as treason rather than as heresy." And yet you pick only the translation and then append the "worst of all creatures" without any critical commentary on what this first half refers to... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Summarizing all of the above - with a possible draft for Wiki POTB, with abbreviated citation-references:

The fate for those among the People of the Book who reject Mahammad's prophethood

 * Muhammad's acceptance of the People of the Book was closely linked with his hope that Jews and Christians would believe in his divine mission. He subssequently learnt that there were some people among them who rejected his claim to prophethood. page 40 These people are characterized in the Quran as the worst of all creatures and are to be cast into hell. page 42
 * Medeni-56 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not what the reliable sources above say (you're still WP:CHERRYPICKING. Sources here are one translation from 1955 (severely outdated, in addition to being a WP:PRIMARY source) and a paper on researchgate (self-published - if this was accepted in a proper publication please link there instead); which seems to be about interfaith marriage (I don't think such a paper would exclusively contain this - you're committing an error of omission). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Summarizing all of the above - with a possible draft for Wiki POTB, generally similar to that of Criticism_of_the_Quran and Kafir

The fate for those among the People of the Book who reject Mahammad's prophethood

 * According to the E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936, Volume 4, the term kafir waas first applied in the Quran to unbelieving Meccans, who endeavoured "to refute and revile the Prophet". A waiting attitude towards the kafir was recommended at first for Muslims; later, Muslims were ordered to keep apart from unbelievers and defend themselves against their attacks and even take the offensive. Most passages in the Quran referring to unbelievers in general talk about their fate on the day of judgement and destination in hell.




 * Medeni-56 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you using a source which talks about apostates and kafir to support statements like this? This seems perfectly relevant in the article where it is. Ironic that you would link to "The status of the Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), particularly Jews and Christians, with respect to the Islamic notions of unbelief is disputed." while trying to make a claim that their status is clear in that aspect. We're done here. As far as I'm concerned: Symbol declined.svg No RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK
 * Medeni-56 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)