Talk:Jews

Older discussions may be found at Talk:Jew/Archive 1

Apostates

In my carelessness the other day I posted a message here which I should have placed under the Talk:Judaism section. I have moved the original there and have changed the title of this section now but the original reply by IZAK is below.

Errr Zestuaf.....it would seem that you are really interested in bringing in "Netzarim" and the subject of "Messianics" who are CRISTIANS into this discussion. This is NOT the place to have the "stealth tactics" of "Jews for Jesus" (meaning Jews who have become Christians and are therefore APOSTATES To Judaism) in order to promote Christianity over Judaism. There is ample place to talk about Christianity. There is even an entry for Jews for Jesus, so why not go there for discussing "Messianics"?!

Why would a section about the Beit Din system help here??

This is an article about Jews as an ETHNICITY, it is not about the religious system, or mechanics, of Judaism which has in any case already been over-stated here when the article discusses "Conversions" by the different denominations. IZAK 20:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Right my careless mistake, I wrote the comment here in a rush before I realised that this wasn't the Talk:Judaism section (which in fact already includes a small discussion of sects). So I have moved my comment there and have changed the title.

To defend myself on your first point though, I suppose now I have to declare that I can produce documentation from my Orthodox rabbi that I am making Teshuvah from secularisation (reconstructionist) back to orthodoxy and that my Rabbi is in good standing with the Israeli rabbinate he is not a Netzarim and neither am I. I am TOTALLY against chrstian missionaries and am getting actively involved in retrieval of assimilated Jews (are you?). It would be nice if you don't accuse the Orthodox Yemenites of being At-All associated with Jews for J-man (because in accordance with Halakhical requirements the Netzarim Beit Din has been acknowledged as a legitimate orthodox Beit Din by the board of the Orthodox Yemenite Beit K'nêsêt in Raanana, Israel) unless you are claiming more authority than the Beit ha-K'nêsêt Môrêshêt Âvôt (which is recognized by the Israeli rabbinate) are you? What is your position? I just added them to the list out of pure neutrality. Netzarim are real Jews and are not in any kind of state of apostasy -unlike Reform. You aught to get your facts straight before leveling accusations brother :-) You might find these two links helpful to be able to distinguish between Messianic Apostates and Real Netzarim. [1],[2]. Netzarim are all anti-missionary onslaught and are one of the the most successful retrieval organisations in the world.

But since you focus on the point I mentioned of Apostate Jews there is a lot about them sprinkled throughout the article but what about pulling these refs together into a little section on Apostate Jews and retrieval programs? All the best and thanks for correcting me IZAK.Zestauferov 12:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews. It is the first I have ever heard of them. Does anyone know for certain if they fit into the apostate category or legitimate category? The links at the bottom of that page make me think perhaps the former. But they may just be bad links. Zestauferov 08:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zest: Sounds like just another group of Jesus-believing and following Christians, nothing more or less. The "theological" splits between Christian splinter groups is very wide. It's a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other"...Still trying to "squeeze in" a group of Jesus-disciples into the "Jew" category is disengenious, as by now, 2,000 years of history makes anyone who follows Jesus into a CHRISTIAN and not a Jew. No theologian would mix and match two religions so determinedly as would a group of proselytizing missionaries hunting "lost Jewish souls". IZAK 09:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Netzarim don't carry out nor encourage conversions, but you are right (I take it you are also grouping muslims as chrstians by your commentZestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)), and I also guess I have to take just criticism in that case. I am no theologian, but I do care very much about "lost souls" when it comes to my family. So I will continue to recommend http://www.netzarim.co.il to any Jewish brothers or sisters being targeted by branches of Messianic Judaism rather than write them off as gone forever. I also care about Those tempted by Reform and Reconstructionism etc. but different approaches are needed. Our major problem is image.[reply]

Anyway back to the point, how about a "Jews in apostasy" section? Any objections if I write one?

All the best Zestauferov 09:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zest: I have Wikified your subject (Jews in apostasy) and wrote a few words, so write there. There is also ALREADY a Wiki section on apostasy so feel free to enter a "Jewish" section over there too. IZAK 07:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean it would be too difficult for Reform & Reconstructionists etc. to swallow to e reminded that they are no more practicing legitimate Judaism than are the Messianic Jews? Zestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, very dissappointing here to see your lack of objectivity in your accross the board revert. You might check more carefully before you revert all changes like that please.

The section on Reform & Reconstructionism views should use the term "interpretations" not Judaism. And since the views of these apostate sects validated only by numbers is mentioned here NPOV demands the apostate messianic views be mentioned too.

The description of halakha is wrong. Ger Tzedek is still a non-Jew, there is no term in Halakha for a convert since it is against the law to even remind a convert of their past.

Judaism is a culture (ethnicity means culture not race) and though one may reject one's culture (which is called apostasy in Judaism because we believe our culture comes from heaven) just as it is impossible to give up british citizenship no matter how many other times one is naturalized in other countries, the same view is adopted by Halakha on being Jewish.

If you don't like the wording fair enough then change it but what I wrote is accurate and informative so I don't understand your reasons for ommitting them. If you are a reform jew you must try to see beyond your interpretations of the world and simply report the facts. You cannot call Messianics apostate without accepting that you are too. Why don't you come on over to more solid ground. All the best

Zestauferov 11:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zestauf: You cannot just arbitrarily "decide" what Reform and Reconstructionism "is" or "is not" with the tendentious goal of inserting "Jews for Jesus" as "merely" another group of "apostates". The sections on the non-Orthodox branches were worked out after much work a long time ago, and you risk antagonizing those contributors and editors who had worked on them when this article first went up over a year ago, and I was not involved with that at all, but I have never tampered with those sections, unlike you who seems determined to do so only so that you can get Christian and Messianic sects included in the main discussions here. In the Judaism section there is already a discussion about Jews for Jesus, it doesn't have to come up here. This article is about "ethnic Jews" and IT DOES SAY THAT MANY ETHNIC JEWS HAVE ASSIMILATED AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY a number of times. IZAK 14:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, don't get emmotional it does not help matters. And don't hurl abuse in an attemt to get me worked up, it will not work because I am not here to fight and cause trouble. I have already mentioned that I was an agnostic secular Jew and I am making teshuvah to the orthodox way.

Thankyou for your comments I am sure they will be well noted. What I am looking for here is objectivity. Perhaps you have never noticed the comment at the bottom of the editing pages "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." I am not Tampering with anything just excercising my Wiki rights. And when this causes upset then we discuss here on the talk pages in a gentlmanly manner if we are abiding by the wiki policies (that means without terms like tendentious, tampering, using CAPITALIZATION, and refrasing a contributer's comments with a slanting rhetoric -for example I would never use the J word contrary to what your postings seem to infer). There is however one word I have used which I regret. I don't like the term apostate myself (did I bring up that term or did you?) because it means most of my friends and family are apostate (reconstructionist, reform, atheist or other secular "ethnic" Jews). I prefer the term assimilated or better still Ethnic Jews. It is precicely because the article claims to be about Ethnic Jews and includes those who have basically rejected traditional Jewish culture to follow Humanism and yet still call themselves Jews viewing it as a religion (it is not a religion in Halakha, it is only a religion if you are taking the Reform or Reconstructionist POV) are trying to make this entry biased to their perspective by excluding other apostate sects that I think the article still needs some NPOV work on it. If I had my way I would shove all "ethnic Jews" outside Israeli reform (progressive), conservative & orthodox judaism into a section on Assimilated Jews because that is the orthodox stance -albeit put in much more gentle terms. However I am not here to shove my views down everyone's throats, I am only here to say that this article is as of yet far from NPOV and seems to take a heavy Reform stance (excepting Israeli Reform). I realise that Izak obviously considers my edits controvercial and for some reason does not want to accept the had of friendship I have extended to him on his talk page through any reciprocvative response. To each his own I suppose. I have no gripe with him and if I could adjust his accusations into simple statements of fact (which I might do later just to keep this page looking civil & brotherly) then I would agree with the fundamentals of all his points. Anyway to please him and show him that I am not about to start an edit war, I will simply call for NPOV on this matter a little more and if not then I will campaign to get the article labelled with a disputed neutrality notice (in which case I hope that truth and objecitvity will win the campaign not emotional charge).

Izak be nice my friend. If race is ethnicity and ethnicity can be religion then your comments are certainly sounding racist, our people have suffered enough abuse and rejection without getting it from other sects of assimilated Jews too. Shalom. Zestauferov 16:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zest: It seems you are intent on defying "conventional wisdom" here, and want to introduce entirely new methods of "classification" that only you will "understand", as those who have worked on this article over time will take exception. This article does NOT take "Reform" a view. It does state Reform views when they are relevant. As I have said, what has been been written in that regard was not done by me, but I think it is unwise to tamper with what they have written. I have a suggestion to make, why don't you succinctly write HERE in "Jew:TALK" what it is that YOU have in mind first, and then see if it fits anywhere! IZAK 23:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why has user Zestauferov created TWO redundent pages Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews as a "protest" to the Jew article?

User Zestauferov claims on his newly minted Talk:Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews (see the related Ger Tzedek): "This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page. Zestauferov 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)". See his comments above. IZAK 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in France

There are repeat statements on this page that most of France's Jews are Sephardic. Does anybody have statistics on this? (Most of the Jews I know are Ashkenazis..) David.Monniaux 22:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi David: See for example: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/vjw/France.html "Post-Holocaust Era: France became a haven for postwar refugees and within 25 years its Jewish population tripled. In 1945, 180,000 Jews were living in France, and, by 1951, the population reached 250,000. An influx of North African Jews immigrated to France in the 1950's due to the decline of the French empire. Subsequent waves of immigration followed the Six-Day War, when another 16,000 Moroccan and Tunisian Jews settled in France. Hence, by 1968, Sephardic Jews were the majority in France. These new immigrants were already culturally French and needed little time to adjust to French society. Today more than 600,000 Jews live in France, 375,000 live in Paris. There are 230 Jewish communities, including Paris, Marseilles (70,000), Lyons (25,000), Toulouse, Nice and Strasbourg. Two of the major problems facing French Jewry are assimilation and anti-Semitism." IZAK 01:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NOTICE: Protection

This article was protected because it has been vandalised 24 times in the last 2 days. -- Graham :) | Talk 01:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd think that vigilant watching and reversion would be the solution to that. There's no actual "dispute" to be resolved, and the article will always be the target of bigots. It can't be "protected" forever -- except by constant attention from those of good will. - Nunh-huh 01:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Protection is a good temporary measure because of the sheer number of vandalisms over the weekend (24 is a lot for any page) but it is only ever a temporary one. Once I'm sure the vandals have got bored and gone away I'll remove the protection. -- Graham :) | Talk 01:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protection removed. Will reprotect if vandalism continues. -- Graham :) | Talk 08:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Older discussions

Older discussions may be found at Talk:Jew/Archive 1

Chagal oil painting

Chagal painting of Abraham and Isaac: This is far too RELIGIOUSLY-laden a scene from Genesis 22, on the painting, to go with an article about Jews as an ETHNIC group...IZAK 05:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sacrifice of Isaac. Oil, Marc Chagall, 1960-1965
"Isaac" on the altar. "Abraham" is tested. Genesis 22

Anti-missionary

I have started a page about what an Anti-Missionary is. Please make any corrections to it that you feel would be beneficial. User:Yoshiah_ap

Today's Jews

Wouldn't most of Jewry today be considered Reform and/or Atheist, not Rabbinical as the article seems to implies? "Almost all Jews today are "Rabbinical Jews"" User:Yoshiah_ap

even tho' most Jews today are not religious at all, yet almost all Jews do derive their ancestry from "Rabbinical Judaism" which was the type of Judaism practiced by the vast majority of Jews for 1,800 years from the onset of Talmudic times until the dawn of the secular age in the 19th and 20th centuries.IZAK

Etymology of Jew

Etymology: From http://www.etymonline.com which is generally dependable: '12c., from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic yehudhai "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah." ' User:Wetman The etymology at the head of this article needs to explain the anomaly about the '-ry- ending.

From what I know of linguistis it could not derive from Judaeum. It looks like one of those faux-pas which has slipped into the conventional explanations like for example the "1400BC Aryans" where there is apparently no scientific basis for this. hyperdictionary.com says Jew is a synonym of Hebrew. Certainly Italian Greek & most slavic languages (the first three translations of the Bible were in Greek Latin & Slavonic) all call Jews as Hebrei Ebrei or Jevrey. If you think it should be reverted until more evidence is presented feel free. User:Zestauferov

To the contrary; -ry is a suffix also found in other English words, deriving from the French -rie (eg saloperie.) How would you explain "Freemasonry", or "nunnery"? Or "fairy", which is from French fée? The traditional etymology is entirely plausible. - Mustafaa 19:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Samaratins

"But the Samaritans do have an oral Law) Learn more about them from the website the-samaritans.com" Shomron@yahoo.com

Origins of Hebrew and Jew

The article states:

The most common view is that the Middle English word Jew is from the Old French qiu, earlier juieu, from the Latin iudeus from the Greek corresponding to the Hebrew y'hudi, ultimately from Judah, name of a Hebrew patriarch and the tribe descended from him. The Old English equivalent was Iudeas. An alternative and much less common view is that Jew is from Jewry from the greek evrei meaning "Hebrews." Under the latter view, Abraham, Israel and other patriarchs are regarded as Jews while under the former only the descendants of the Judaeans would be Jews, strictly speaking.

I have removed the last sentence; the common useage of a word often has litle or no relation to the word's historical, linguistic origin. Many people assume that the word "Jew" is derived from evrei; yet this does not mean they have a different definition of "Who is a Jew" than people who go by the more accepted derivation (i.e. the former one in the paragraph.) People do have different ideas of how the ancient Hebrews are related to the Jews of today, but that is better described in a separate paragraph. This latter idea is discussed in the article on Israelites. RK 00:55, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Shalom RK, I think it is very valuable and relevant to the article to tie to that etymology an explanation of why Abraham and Isaac & other patriarchs are considered Jewish (which also explains how a person can be a Jew without being very religious). It is not fair to those without an indepth knowledge of all the parameters to omit this clear & simple explaination very relevant to the article. If it does not belong where it was then place it somewhere else in the article but let's not omit it.

Re the opening para: "still identify as Hebrews in a cultural or ethnic sense." None of the Jews I know identify as "Hebrews." The identify as Jews. Why this strange squeamishness about the word Jew? Adam 12:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Understanding Jews as Hebrews & vice-versa

Jews are Hebrews! I never met a Jew who does not consider Abraham and the patriarchs to be Jews. Adam

Yes, most religious Jews believe that Abraham and the other Biblical patriarchs were Jews. But this is not the point. Historians use the name "Hebrews" for the group of people that would later become Israelites, and later "Jews". However, it is a historical anachronism to use the word "Hebrews" to refer to Jews today. Most people don't even use the term "Israelites" to refer to the Jews today. JeMa 15:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why? Because even if the most common sources argue that Jew come from Judah, that is not how it works in our mindsets nor in the more obscure sources. No one can deny that these figures were Hebrews and that is the best way to look at the word Jew. Most dictionaries also give Hebrew as one of the meanings of Jew and a member of the Judaic religion as another meaning. I don't know why there is always such a fuss made about it. Orthodox Jews would reject someone as a member of their religion and that is fine because if they do not follow their ways. However it is not automatic that the same orthodox Jew (Judaicist) would have a problem in accepting that person as a Hebrew if it were claimed. Hebrew is the cultural element Judaic is the religious. Because of the arguments of etymologists both may be called Jews. Some Jews (Hebrews) are more Jewish (Judaic) than others in their religious beliefs but that does not divide us we are all Jews (Hebrews) regardless. The fastest growing religion in Israel is Buddhism but does that mean there are fewer and fewer Jews (Hebrews) in israel? Of course not. But it does mean that a lot of Jews (Hebrews) practice Buddhism. And it does mean that there are fewer Jews (Judaic practitioners) in Israel.

Perhaps this concept is difficult to grasp for non-Jews who do not come from an ethnic community living amongst people who couldn't care less about their ethnic origins. Because Jews are white people cannot accept our national identity being different from our national citizenship. This probably explains why some people in anger asked why Jews don't just get israeli citizenship if we don't consider themselves British. If Jews were green in colour then ironically it would have been more acceptable that we identify ourselves as a seperate nation. Colour blindness works in many ways.

Don't be too hung up on finding a difference between Jew and Hebrew. There isn't any significant difference. The difference is in the level of one's Judaism (easy to illustrate) or descent from one of the 12 tribes (very difficult) and that is all. That makes everything very clear [note ironic tone]. Adam

You seem to be using a technical term incorrectly. Historians reserve the term "Hebrew" to refer to the ancient people from which the Israelites (later, Jews) came. They do not use these words as synonyms. Also, most religious Jews do not refer to themselves as Hebrews. They only call themselves Jews. Your points about Jews as a people versus Jews as those who practice Judaism is well taken. I do not think that anyone is disagreeing with you. This is only a point of terminology that we are trying to clarify. The people you are talking about are called "Jews", not "Hebrews". JeMa 15:18, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

For historians there is a difference in using these words. They use the term "Hebrew" to refer to the ancient ethnic group, not very well defined, from which the Israelite tribes eventually sprung forth. You are using the same word in a different fashion, as a synonym for "Jew". JeMa 15:18, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

JeMa 1. No the people I am refering to are called Jews 'and/or' Hebrews (?!?!not Hebrews!?!?!). You might be confused about this. Jew does 'not' just refer to anyone who is a descendant of Judah in religious practice or otherwise. 'Such' people are called Judaic. Jew 'does' on the otherhand refer to Israelites AND the patriarchs. That is why the arguments on the etymology being from Juda are not only wrong but also confusing. I am not the only one doing this, every Jew I have met thinks the same way. Morover the majority of languages in Europe call us Hebrews. They are right. Jew as a synonym for Hebrew is the simplest and easiest way to look at it. We are forced to use Jew in english because the use of Hebrew is "otherwise engaged", but in our own language we call it and ourselves Hebrew. 2. An encyclopaedia should explain the Jewish question simply. 3 I am not absolutely sure that every Historian would agree with your over simplified view (I don't for example), but those who would certainly contribute to clouding the issue. As far as we are concerned All Hebrews are Jews but not all Hebrews are Judaic.

You are using terminology that I am not familiar with. I have never heard of Judaics; how do they differ from Jews? Also, I did not say that the word "Jew" refers to descendents of Judah. I agree that such a useage is incorrect. The article on the ancient Israelites explains this issue. (In short, many descendants of the ancient tribe of Judah are not Jews. They have long been assimilated into other cultures, and are now gentiles.) Also, are you saying that in Europe, English speakers do not refer to Jews, but instead refer to Jews as "Hebrews"? JeMa 17:39, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I have never heard of Judaics either. I don't believe I have ever used this plural noun. However, I have used the adjective Judaic to describe one's level of Judaism. But one's level of Judaism is not very connected to one's Jewishness. Being Jewish is a question of belonging to the Hebrew nation. Some Jews may disagree with me if I say that being a part of the Hebrew nation entails more than simply an Israeli passport. It is however 'usually' taken for granted that every Jew will also be Judaic to some extent or other. I.E. Judaism will be practiced at some level or other. But that is only usually the case. Even an orthodox will accept them as a Hebrew without accepting them as Judaic. The problem is in ENGLISH (not every language) there is no noun for someone who practices Judaism, so the same noun which Jews understand and use to mean Hebrew to ALL intents and purposes (i.e. Jew whether or not one agrees that the term ultimately derives from Yevrei) is also used to describe one's level/adherance to Judaism. I don't know how you got the idea that English speakers in Europe refer to Jews as Hebrews. I wrote that the majority of Languages in Europe call us Hebrews meaning rather than claim that our national name derives from Judah their names for us include an initial aspirant &/or vowel also a b/v an r and a final high vowel. The idea I was hoping you might catch is that when most English speaking Jews say Jew they mean Hebrew (except in very few circumstances). When someone asks me why I don't eat pork I say because I am Jewish, but if they take it to mean I am talking about my religion, they are making their own conclusions. I do what I do because that is part of my nationality. That is because they do not understand what it means to be a Hebrew in nationality. Likewise when they meet an Israeli at a dinner party they might be surprised after having gone through the efforts of finding out which foods are not Kosher to see that the guest in question loves shellfish. This area is comparable with asking why someone from one part of the world eats 12 dishes on christmas eve they would not be surprised when that person says because I am Polish so too are certain things Jews do a part of our culture and nationhood regardless of how Judaic our lives are (i.e. what level of Judaism we may or may not practice living at).

I think the phrase "die weltweit am schellsten wachsende jüdische Gemeinschaft" should be translated as "not all Wikipedia readers know German" (for instance I don't know German). Sabbut 06:44, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. JeMa 17:39, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed

Israeli legal definition of Jew

Can someone please provide information on the Israeli legal definition of a Jew and how the Israeli government goes about classifying people by religion and "ethnicity"?

The definition used by the Israeli government are explained in the Israel sub-articles. They are similar to the definitions used by the Aram Muslim countries in the region. (However, Israeli's citizenship laws are much, much more liberal than the laws of any of their surrounding Arab Muslim nations.)) RK 14:06, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

I guess you mean the "Population groups in Israel" page? Not the first place one would look. Logically shouldn't it be on this page?

Come to think of it, yes! You are correct that this was an oversight. I have added a section on this subject to this page. I also have slightly expanded the page on Population groups in Israel. RK 13:47, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

This seems to imply that the legal definition is traditional Jewish law + law of return but it sort of leaves the reader guessing. Also the preceding sections indicate that there are people who consider themselves Jewish according to various definitions. Are disputes handled through the normal legal system? Also I see this statement below:"However, the Israeli legal definition of a Jew excludes those who have joined other religions."

Keith from Calgary 20:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have moved this new paragraph here, just for clarification: and it is ironic that the traditional & modern legal Jewish authorities consider Jewishness as Hebrew ethnicity which can be adopted by anyone willing to adopt as a way of life a conservative form of the Judaic religion or naturalisation process at the very least while other types of religious Jew are not considered Jewish. Thus introducing oneself as a secular or ethnic Jew actually emphasises ones Jewishness from an official perspective.

I am not sure what you mean by this. This is a run-on sentence. What do you mean by "conservative form of the Jewish religion". And what other forms of the Jewish religion do you believe exists? Are you using the word "conservative" as a euphemisim for "ultra-Orthodox"? RK 01:38, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Two items:

Judaism and conversion of non-Jews

1. Judiaism does not hold that truly rightous individuals must convert to Judiaism. Non-Jews that observe the seven commandments given to the children of Noah are rightous. This is a significant difference beteen Judiaism and Christianity and Islam. In Christianity, the uncoverted are damned; the Jews are particularity damned and particularly sought out for converstion. Islam allows Jews and Christians some inferior legitimacy vis a vis Muslims.

Judaism does not consider non-Jews as damned. However, Judaism does believe that it is better to be a righteous Jew than a righteous non-Jew. Judaism is a higher standard. Somebody who lives up to a higher standard is better than somebody who lives up to a lower standard. However, the higher standard is a contract, as such somebody who signs the contract is responsible to uphold its terms while somebody who doesn't does not have to uphold them.

It is therefore quite possible for a righteous non-Jew to be considered better than a nominally religious Jew because the non-Jew is living up to his responsibilities and the Jew is not really doing so. However, a righteous non-Jew, unless he has a good reason, would in order to further his righteousness have to become a Jew. Ezra Wax

Reform Judaism and "Halachah"

2. Do Reform and other forms for Judiaism use the term Halachah?OneVoice 10:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, they use the term, but no, they do not accept it as normative. That is, they accept that Jews used to live by halachah, but they hold that Jews no longer need to do so. For them, living by Jewish law and custom is totally a matter of personal autonomy, and any or all parts of it can be disposed of. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

There is no such thing as traditional Jewish law and current Jewish law. There is only one Jewish law. Christianity believes in a new testament. Judaism does not. Any Jewish law that is not based on traditional Jewish law, is thus not Jewish, it is something else. If there are disagreements as to how Jewish law should be interpreted, those must be dealt with, but then they are disagreements within Jewish law. Discussing the truth of Jewish law does not belong in this article. This is an article about who is Jewish, not whether Judaism exists. If non-Orthodox Judaism has criteria by which they determine Jewishness, they should be stated, otherwise they are unknown. Ezra Wax

I don't think that's accurate. The Jewish law followed by American Reform Judaism is still "Jewish law" by most definitions of the term (or at least they claim it is, and this is accepted by a large proportion of American Jews), despite not being the same as "traditional Jewish law". You cannot write this article based on the assumption that a large proportion of American Jews aren't "real Jews", as that's a highly POV claim not accepted by many millions of people. --Delirium 03:47, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree on this point. Reform Jews are very clear that they are not following Jewish law; their current literature still holds that Reform Jews are not obligated to follow any form of Jewish law; they hold the entire idea to be outdated, if not insulting. The hightest authority for Reform Jews is their own personal autonomy. Even within their rabbinical seminaries most of their rabbis do not study Jewish law in any depth, and do not observe Jewish law to even one tenth the level of your average Orthodox layperson. For Reform Jews, the words in Jewish law books are suggestions that are left up to the individual to follow. They consider themselves "post-halakhic". RK 18:48, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Ezra claims "There is no such thing as traditional Jewish law and current Jewish law. There is only one Jewish law. Christianity believes in a new testament. Judaism does not. Any Jewish law that is not based on traditional Jewish law, is thus not Jewish, it is something else."

These pious claims are incorrect. Can Ezra point out us to a book which has this mythical "Jewish law" in it? In the real world, there are many volumes of Jewish law, each of which was written in a different community, in a different time period, and each of which is accepted (or rejected) by a given Jewish community. The responsa literature is wide and varied . In a wider sense, of course, Jewish law does exist and it does have a certain coherence to it; one can even talk about the traditional halakhic process. However, the narrow view of it has never existed within traditional Judaism. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since the closure of the Talmud, all Jewish law is based on it. Differing customs all find roots in the Talmud, or are compatible with it. Anything incompatible with the talmud is not jewish law. Any interpretation of the laws of the Talmud that seems forced must be able to defend itself. Ezra Wax

That's true. I think that Jews of all denominations would agree on this. I didn't think that this point was in dispute. RK 00:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

This view of Judaism is so narrow that most Jews who lived as traditional Jews would actually fall outside the purview of Judaism. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Somebody who is Jewish and believes in the Jewish law, just does not properly keep it, is practicing Judaism. It is when he is practicing a religion that does not believe in Jewish law, such as non-Orthodox Judaism, that he is not practicing Judaism, no matter how carefully he adheres to their teachings. Ezra Wax

Orthodox view

Many rabbis, even Orthodox rabbis, would disagree. Many hold that those who do not follow Jewish law are not practicing Judaism; while they may be Jewish, they also may be practicing no religion at all. This is certainly true for many of my own relatives, who although Jewish, no longer practice their faith. In contrast, what matters for many rabbis is whether or not someone is observant of Jewish law, even if they not call themselves Orthodox. I know Jews who came from Conservative and even Reform backgrounds, who do not consider themselves Orthodox, who are religious and Shomer Shabbat. They are certainly held as practioners of Judaism, even by the Orthodox Jews in the town in which I live! The Orthodox Jews of my town view them as having certain mistaken beliefs, no doubt, but they still view them as practicing Judaism. RK 00:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

In regards to the modern denominations of Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, Ezra does have a point. These movements publicly and consciously reject the idea that Jews should live by any form of Jewish law, even liberal forms of it. These movements even have many rabbis who insult those Jews who choose to keep kosher and follow Shabbat. I have read recent publications by leaders of these movements who advise their followers not to follow most aspects of Jewish law, and who atatck Jewish law as "fundamentalist". When they do so, they are not using this term in its correct technical sense, but merely as an ad homenim attack against observant Jews. Ezra is also right to say that many Jews have severed most bonds with what historically is known as "Judaism". Ezra has is not denying that most Reform Jews are Jews; he is only denying that they are observing Judaism. And from what I have read and seen, in this regard he is correct. Most American Jews do not claim to be observing Judaism. There is a huge difference between saying "I am Jewish", which is a very easy thing to do; in fact, there are many agnostics, humanists, Unitarians, atheists, neo-pagans and Chrisitians who happen to be ethnically Jewish. They can easily say "I am a Jew!" But this is very different from people saying "I try to observe the laws, customs and traditions known as Judaism". Observing Judaism takes effort and knowledge. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Jema: Since you object to what you removed and since I think that you think I am responsible for it, I want to respond. I don't object to your removal of what was written. I merely edited what was written there previously. I objected to what was previously and didn't want to delete what somebody else wrote, so I changed it to more accurately reflect what I believe. What was there before I edited was also polemical, just not in a way that you object to. Ezra Wax

Jews before Mt. Sinai

Before Mount Sinai it is not clear whether our forefathers had the status of Jews. As such any conversions that might have taken place would not be the same as the conversions since Mount Sinai. Therefore, I think the whole bit about the wives of the patriarchs and of Moses should be removed. Ezra Wax

Agreed. The status of such people as Jews is not clear, even in traditional Jewish law. According to modern day historians, and some Orthodox rabbis, the entire idea of a "Jew" before the time of Moses is a historical anachronism. Many modern historians hold that the entire idea of a "Jew" is an anachronism before the time of the Sourthen Kingdom of Judah came into being. (In this view, before then such people would be termed "Israelites" or "Hebrews".) This concept is discussed further in the article on Israelites. Danny knows quite a bit about this subject, and could probably answer most questions on it. RK 14:23, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

The patriarchs and their wives

Removed paragraph "Even the wives of the patriarchs were Jews or converts except for Esau's and Hagar, which might explain why their children have not usually been considered Jews. Moses's Midianite wife must also have been of Keturah's line else there would not have been any importance over circumcising their son until he was old enough to choose to convert himself."

Hi Ezra Wax, Hi RK! Some rabbis I have spoken to have affirmed that Abraham and his wives and all of his men who were circumcised with him and the wives who stayed with them were Jews. Maybe this does not sound neutral, but the POV exists and so should be included otherwise it would not be truely NPOV don't you think. I ask you both to think about the topic in Hebrew (or even Ladino if you are Sephardi) not English. Now what do we call all Jews in Hebrew? Now according to these languages then was Abraham a Jew? So then why not try to explain to English speakers why the Patriarchs are Jewish instead of confusing the identity of our very own people because we have started to let our understanding become dominated by a foreign language? Zestauferov

Principles of Judaism

Does this seem a little strange to anyone else?

The mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence to Jewish principles of faith does not make one lose one's Jewish status. However, the Israeli legal definition of a Jew excludes those who have joined other religions.

How does one "adhere to principles of faith"? believe perhaps, endorse, espouse, but adhere? One could adhere to principles of behavior, adhere to the law, adhere to a course of action, but to faith?

That is what the sentence means. English speakers in America sometimes say that they adhere to certain beliefs. Still, we can replace this word with another if you like. JeMa

"mere belief" seems to carry with it the idea that belief alone is not enough. a wiff of the Christian faith vs works issue? perhaps it should be reworded to reflect the idea that one needs to both believe, at least in the content of Sh'ma, and to actualize that belief though deeds. (based upon the idea that there is a God and that God demands behavior of people that is proper...that people should strive to behave in a holy manner even. hints/source of the islamic idea of greater jihad?) that belief that fails to modify one's behavior is sterile, stillborn. that behavior that is not rooted in belief, is subject to one's own considerations, perhaps somewhat too flexible. then there is the issue of community, to be a Jew one must cleave upon the community....the idea that one can not be a Jew alone, but only in a community. one is tempted to say perhaps even a minyan but that might be to far a stretch. ;) thoughts in the wee hours. thoughts on how this could be reworded? OneVoice 01:52, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with faith versus works. Judaism will not accept anyone into their religion on the basis of beliefs alone. Not even my half-Jewish relatives (I am not considered Jewish by Jewish law, either, but that is no problem as I "worship" UU style.) Judaism requires acts in addition to beliefs. JeMa

Actually you are right in that the meaning of the sentence is not actually clear as it stands. What is the objective of that sentence? Is it trying to point out that becomming Jewish is not about believing but about living and that once one has become Jewish, it is impossible to leave? Or is it trying to describe that the Israeli interior position does not accept as Jewish people who convert to Judaism but as long as someone with traditionally accepted Jewishness has not joined another religion they will be accepted? If the latter is this accurate?Zestauferov 14:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The objective is to provide information on how Judaism differs from other religions. People always assume it is like Christianity, and that one can convert to Judaism by only accepting Jewish beliefs. Not so. This paragraph has nothing to do with the State of Israeli and its ministries. JeMa

Ok, got you. Maybe you could try to alter the sentence on the page to make its meaning more implicit? ThanksZestauferov 08:14, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That distinction isn't entirely accurate: you cannot convert to, say, Eastern Orthodoxy simply by accepting their beliefs either (there is a process of conversion, baptism, and chrismation that has to be followed). --Delirium 03:07, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Karaites

On Karaites, according to all the sites mentioned on Karaites, they do not consider the Talmud as the Oral Law (or believe in the Oral Law ever existed), but never said anything about the Mishna. Karaites can be pretty much divided into two groups - those who call themselves Jews, those who don't (mostly ethnic Turkish). Take for example the sermons from here, http://www.karaites-usa.org/Target_Tanakh/index.htm which groups books of the Tanakh not part of the Torah.

Being that they don't believe in the oral law, they don't believe in the Mishna, as the mishna is a compilation of the oral law. Ezra Wax

We do not accept the Mishna, Gemmarah, etc. as being authorative. Of those who do not call themselves Jews, but are Jews, do not call themselves Jews as a result of a combination of the ban of Religion during the Communist era and attempting to avoid anti-semetic laws in Russia. There is another group known as Karaites that are actually a Tribal group that worships a "Tengri", and venerates trees. They also do not claim to be Jews, but that hasn't stop the anti-semites from bothering them.

Photograph

Larger image

Hi, I scanned this photograph out of the March 1914 issue of National Geographic Magazine. I think its a beautiful example of early color photography, and wondered if someone might consider it of use for illustrating some Wikipedia article on Jewish realated topics. The photo is now in the public domain.

The original caption says: "AN ARABIAN JEW These Jews, claiming to be of the tribe of Gad, have lived for centuries in Yemen in Southern Arabia."

Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've used it to illustrate the Tefillin article. -- Infrogmation 04:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Jews

I consider the continuing removal on my section on stereotypes of Jews to be vandalism. If you delete text that is factual, verifiable, and non-biased, you must give a reason. The fact that it points out true facts that might not necessarily be favorable to a certain group is not a valid reason.

Why text inserted by 67.75.19.59 is repeatedly deleted

User:67.75.19.59 has insisted on adding this text to the article:

Stereotypes of Jews

Because the Jewish religion does not forbid the loaning of money at interest, a disproportionate number of Jews have become bankers and money lenders. This has led to negative stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, avaricious, and money-oriented.

A disproportionate number of Jews are also pornography directors, which has further aggravated negative stereotypes against them. However, it is quite likely that these stereotypes are simply due to centuries-old religious animosity.

I believe this does not comform to NPOV. 67.75.19.59 claims to be the victim of "Unjustified deletion of factual, verifiable, non-opinionated text" -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Googlebomb

Just saw this on the goings on and thought I'd let everyone watcthing this article know - this article is currently being googlebombed so that it will displace an anti-semetic website as the #1 google hit. [3] [4] →Raul654 22:22, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't even on the first page of google hits when the bomb started, and had moved up to #4 when the story first broke on news sites. Moved up to #2 now, 3 weeks after the start. Cool! Arvindn 03:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

please link to chabad and Lubavitch Network --Jew 11:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a great insight into one of the oldest religions in the history of mankind. Thank you for keeping the truth and not changing the history the way some have done. etragrammaton

Now it's #1. --Joshuapaquin 02:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Update: April 20, 2004 Fox News does a story on the "Jew" google results. Mentions that "Jew Watch" has been knocked down to #2, but doesn't mention Wikipedia (#1!) - Nunh-huh 23:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fox news is not allowed to mention wikipedia. (Since we're not commercial, they have to pretend that we don't exist.) Arvindn 03:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why do they have to pretend so?

P.S: Most other mainstream media are a little better. They write about us, but change the URL to www.wikipedia.com. Arvindn 03:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Judah" and the tetragrammaton

From the article:

In Hebrew, the name "Judah" contains the four-letter Tetragrammaton,

Is this so? I wouldn't have thought that there were enough consonants in "Judah"? Anyone know enough Hebrew to confirm/deny this? -- The Anome 14:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Judah in Hebrew is actually Yehudah which is written YHWDH which is the tetragrammaton plus D. --Zero 02:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Germany past & present

The sentence "The experiences during the Nazi era, a cosmopolitan and anti-nationalistic post-war education, and the political movement of the Sixties have created an atmosphere of tolerance in Germany which is still missing in many post-communist states." is bad written English (main verb near the end) and should be turned round but I'd rather someone else did it to avoid changing the meaning. BozMo (talk)

Hi BozMo: Done! IZAK

New section on Anti-Semitism

Someone just added two new paragraphs on anti-semitism to the article here: Jew#Victims_of_Anti-Semitism. It seems a bit out of place since there is already a link to anti-semitism. Opinions? Comments?
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:06, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. →Raul654 02:07, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

And now User:IZAK has added much more, including this POV-titled section: Jew#Why_so_few_Jews?_And_why_are_people_obsessed_with_them?. Does someone want to try to work on this article? I think it needs a lot of help at this point -- it's too long and has too many tangential sections, like the history of the ancient Israelites. I'm not expert enough to separate the wheat from the chaff in the current revision. -- BCorr|Брайен 04:27, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Few Jews

Hi Bcorr: To ask why there are "so few Jews" relative to the world's population is not an unreasonable or POV question. It is a question asked by demographers and historians who search for the reason why a people so prominent in world history has remained so small in numbers when other nations, such as India or China who are just as ancient, and are their size have swelled over the centuries. The other question, about "why the Jews?" is as old as history, since many historians both past and present have grappled with that old British phrase:"How odd of God, To choose the Jews?"! It does beg for an answer. IZAK

Hi IZAK -- the short answer: most of this belongs in Judaism, rather than Jew. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:11, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Bcorr, I thought it over and have renamed it "Jewish population" so that the focus is on Jews as an ethnic "population group", not a matter of Judaism as such. Thanks for the input. IZAK

Sub groups

Why are some subgroups of under "Common terms" and others under "Communities"? Shouldn't all be in one section? I would expect the Bene Israel and the Juhurim (Mountain Jews) to fall in the same section of the article -- Jmabel

Jmabel: Yes, I have tried to reorganize this now. IZAK 15:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Too many external links, too many see-also's

Up until now, the rule of thumb is that about 10 external links is the maximum. This article currently has 61 external links(!!). In general, "see also" is depricated. If it's worth reading, it should be mentioned in the article. We have 13 of those. Unless someone else does it, I'm going to prune down both of those sections. →Raul654 01:08, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Raul, Let me see what I can do...IZAK

Islam has 59, but nobody replied to my request... silsor 01:48, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just say that unless someone else does it, you're going to. That's usually enough to convince the people who care about the article to do it themselves. If not, "be bold" and do it yourself. →Raul654 01:50, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't be too darn bold on the external links! Often they are included in an article like this because they are effectively references. Since our notion is that the "References" section doesn't include web sites, this happens a lot. Make sure you are not killing the article's references. -- Jmabel 06:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Google again

I am not sure if the editors of this page are keen followers of the attempt to googlebomb this page described under [googlebomb] but I thought I'd let you know you have slid a bit further down the rankings now and on my understanding of google's algorithm the above remarks about external links would also help with this: you will improve overall page rank (since the pages claim equal relevance) by linking this page to internal Wikipedia pages which linked back again rather than by having lots of external links. BozMo (talk)

the editors of any Wikipedia article should aim to make it the best possible encyclopedia article on that subject. That is more important than, and may occasionally conflict with, tuning the article to lift its ranking on any particular search engine (no matter how good the cause may be). If you want to help Googlebomb this article, do so by linking to it on your own site, rather than by distorting Wikipedia itself. -- Mpt 17:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism (See also "Protection" below, as of 26 April `04)

I am disappointed that the response to the Googlebombing of this Wikipedia entry was to remove the content and replace it with yet another link to a hate site. Thankfully, this link is 404. Replacing the top spot in the Google hierarchy with the Wikipedia entry would not have prevented searchers from finding the hate site, and Google quite rightly refused to take the site out of the rankings. But now the Wikipedia entry has been *replaced* by a link to a defunct hate page, and that *does* make the search for good, intelligent information that much harder, and allows the hate groups that much more control. This was a very bad decision.

That was quite simply vandalism, and I reverted the article to its previous state. Its an inherent feature of Wikis that they can be vandalized, however normally such vandalism is found quite quickly and reverted. Due to the googlebombing this article might attract more antisemitic vandals then it did before, but - even YOU could have fixed it, just read at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. andy 13:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and I'm more glad than I can tell you to see the original excellent page restored. Thank you, very much.

Persecutions

Why are article sections "Christian Attitudes to Jews" and "Arab and Islamic Attitudes to Jews" subordinate to the heading "Victims of Anti-Semitism". Isn't this a bit tendentious? -- Jmabel 05:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jm, since 99% of the world's Jews live/d in countries where the other people are either Moslem or Christian, and that's where the persecutions took place, it's logical it seems. IZAK 21:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I'd be willing to bet that 100% of them lived somewhere on planet earth. Would we be justified in saying that they were persecuated because they lived on earth? Stats 101 - association does not imply causation. →Raul654 21:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Raul: Planet Earth? Now that is a stretch isn't it? It's not a case of "causality" either. The fact of the matter is that Jews have lived mostly in Europe (and now in the Americas) where MOST of the people were/are Christian/Catholic, and in the Middle East where Islam reigns. So what is so hard to figure? Japan, India or China, with huge populations and significant religions have not had any major long-term significant contact with Jews as a large sub-group in their midst, whereas Christians in Europe and Moslems in the Middle East always have had. IZAK 23:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Christian Attitudes to Jews" and "Arab and Islamic Attitudes to Jews" are under the heading of "Victims of Anti-Semitism". If all the jews lived in places that were ruled by Muslims or Christians, then *of course* that's where the anti-semitism would occur - they have to be there for it to happen. The implication is that they were persecuted *because* they were living alongside Christians and Muslims, which as Jmabel said, is very POV. →Raul654 23:46, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Raul: I think the point is moot (mute?) as someone has re-titled the section in question: "Persecution", and then given it new sub-headings, "Nazi", "Christian" etc...that makes things fit contextually, it seems. IZAK 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arab & Islamic

Continuing on this, I added the following to the section that was recently retitled "===Arab and Islamic===". IZAK promptly removed it without explanation.

Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, was killed in 1066 by a mob opposed to what they saw as undue power for a non-Moslem. However, it would have been unimaginable for a Jew even to have risen to a similar position in the Christian portion of Europe at that time.

Modern Arab and (to a lesser extent) other Moslem attitudes toward Jews are often colored by opposition to Zionism and to the policies (or even -- for some -- the existence) of the state of Israel.

IZAK, are you questioning the factuality of this? If so, what exactly are you disputing? If not, what exactly is your objection to this material? -- Jmabel 00:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel: The accuracy is OK, but the paragraphs are already laden with the main points of Jewish suffering in Moslem lands. What is gained by adding the info about Joseph HaNagid? On the latter points, there is already mention that the Arabs' negative attitudes are influenced by Zionism and Israel. This article's main focus is on "Jews" as an ethnicity in history until the present.IZAK 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baath party

The Baath party stuff is misleading. Sure, Jews did also leave after the Baath party takeover in Iraq; but by that time, only 6,000 out of the original 130,000 were left[5], the rest having fled earlier, so Baathism can scarcely be claimed as a major factor. - Mustafaa 19:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Put in something about the earlier departure due to the pro-Nazi government then. Snowspinner 19:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That isn't true either. Most Jews left in 1952-3, after the government which had briefly supported the Nazis had long since been thrown out by the British. The immediate reason Iraqi Jews left was because of the tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, although no doubt earlier history helped persuade them. - Mustafaa 19:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hence my not putting it in. Regardless, the Baathist government caused the remainder of the Jews in Iraq to depart, and it's sensible to mention. Still, go ahead and put corrections in. Snowspinner 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sadat & Nazism

Oh, and [6] agree with other sources: Sadat was imprisoned for being anti-British, not for being pro-German. - Mustafaa 19:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Err, Mustafa, did you see this in the source you site:"...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..."

Mustafa: Word play is silly, to say that Sadat was anti-British and "not" pro-Nazi is poor logic and goes against what he did. Sadat was actively in touch with the Axis and was atempting to bring Egypt in on their side AGAINST the British as Axis Allies. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Syria

As for Syria, please do not make one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships, and an ally of Vichy France, into a "welcoming" home for its Jews as it was not. The vast majority of Syria's Jews fled because of its various governments' attitudes to them. It's, oh so convenient to "blame it on the Israelis", but that is just what it was, an excuse to squeeze their Jews, most of whom picked up and ran as fast as they could from the tyranny. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Syria "one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships"? By all means. But its tyranny is even-handed. How are Syrian Jews worse off than any other victims of Assad? Syria is no more welcoming to the Jews than to the Sunnis or Shia or Druze or anybody else, but it has made every attempt to keep them in the country. - Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islamic world

This article is NOT about the "Arab or Islamic view" of Jews, and placing all the blame on the Israeli conflict etc, it is about the history of Jews as an ethnicity, and no matter what summersaults of logic one may perform, it is still a huge travesty of history that almost one million Sephardic Jews in the modern Middle East were forced to flee their ancient homes in the Islamic world they had been part of as productive, good and loyal citizens.IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And when were they forced to do this? Hmm, just after the emergence of Israel. You think the two events might be connected in some way? Naaah...

Mustafa: Some will say that this is too "pro" Israeli, but it does convey the FACTS as most Jews understand them to be:

JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48 IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, the measures taken against Jews in some Arab countries, notably Iraq, were quite unjust - although Jews also left en masse from countries like Morocco, which treated them as well (or as badly) as any other citizens. But it would be willful blindness to claim that this mistreatment had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, given both the timing and the actual statements of the governments involved - and the major Israeli campaigns to persuade them to leave, which according to some Sephardi sources went so far as planting bombs in synagogues[7]. - Mustafaa 18:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: "Israelis bombed synagogues"??? When??? Before or after the falafel and humus was served :-) ??? Is this yet again desperation trying to "always pin the blame on Israel", what about all the bombs that Arabs threw at synagogues??? Come now!:

I gave you the link; it's not my claim, it's an Iraqi Jew's. He may be full of it, or he may be telling the truth; don't ask me. Mustafaa 20:59, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: The point is that YOU MUST TRY TO AVOID TO BLAME THE (JEWISH) VICTIM/S FOR THEIR OWN MISFORTUNES. The Arabs and Moslems MUST take full responsibility for THEIR share of the disenfranchisement, loss of property, persecution, expulsion, and cruelty towards their Jewish fellow countryman in the lands of Islam. I know its hard sometimes, but try to avoid the knee-jerk response of "It's the Jews' or Zionists' fault" every time even a mouse squeeks. IZAK 02:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So when an Iraqi Jew says Israel was prepared to bomb synagogues in order to get the Jews out of Iraq, your reaction is that his statement is part of Arabs trying to evade their share of responsibility for the Jews' exodus? Sounds to me more like Israelis trying to evade their share of responsibility for it! - Mustafaa 06:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Be reasonable now, are you saying that because "AN" unkown "Iraqi Jew" (who is he by the way??) alleged something about Israel, then that is "why" the Jews left Iraq? This is too absurd. Israel, or its birth, was NOT solely "responsible" for Iraq kicking out about 120,000 of its (Iraqi) Jewish citizens. By the way, why would they suddenly want to "blame" people (the Jews) who had lived PEACEFULLY in their midst for over 2,000 years for something that was being done in "Palestine". Is it not self-defeating and illogical? IZAK 09:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No-one is saying that the rise of the modern State of Israel had "NOTHING" to do with the animosity to Jews in Moslem lands.
What is being said is that it was NOT the "ONLY" factor, NOR was it necessarily the "PRIMARY" factor, as since about the END of the 19th century, for over 100 years there were RISING TENSIONS and hatreds that were BUILDING UP for a variety of reasons (for example):
Some had to do with Moslems THEMSELVES as the Arabs were rising up against the Islamic Turks (the Turkish Sultan had the Caliphate, the supreme position in Islam, which drove the Arabs mad with rage and jealousy), and the Jews were seen as being tied in with the Ottomans who had: first welcomed them after Spain's expulsion of its Jews in 1492; and then allowed them gradual entry into Palestine for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to the chagrin of the Arabs. By the time the British took over in 1917 there were already tens of thousands of Jews living in Palestine for many generations.
The rise of modern NATIONALISM with calls by local leaders for "national" Arab states that put pressures on vulnerable ethnic minorities such as the Jews in their midst, who became convenient "scapegoats" for the failures of the new Arab "revolutionary leaders" to come up with "rewards", so they conveniently incited mobs against the Jews' quarters and took away the Jews' wealth (all in the name of "nationalisation" of course,(just another name for state sanctioned robbery) and it was oh so convenient that way out somewhere in the swamps of the Galilee a few "Zionist" pioneers had the temerity to get rid of the mosquitos and plant crops, all "good enough" reason to sanction anti-Jewish resentment and even riots from Morocco to Iraq in Arab eyes;
The rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe with those anti-Semitic movements influencing the thinking and aspirations of rising young Arab leaders;
Founding of the Moslem Brotherhood of extreme Islam, such as we see in the present with Al Quida of which so many Arabs our "proud"; and
The Pan Arab ideology which was espoused, for example, by Nasser and Saddam Hussein, that called for a "Pan Arabian" alliance that was self-centered in its Arab-Islamic self-adulation and CHOSE to make "Israel" into a conevenient "rallying-cry" to unite the Arab masses, and which resulted in hatred and pressure against Jews in Arab lands to leave...(but which actually misfired as these movements brought the Arab states into conflicts with the superpowers...but that is another story). IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The founders of modern Arab nationalism were Christians almost to a man - Michel Aflaq, to name the most prominent. They founded it specifically as an alternative to religious-based nationalism, in which they would have lost out. The movement was joined by many Jews (notably in Egypt). Hostile to linguistic minorities, maybe; hostile to religious minorities it wasn't! The rest of this rampant speculation is scarcely worth the effort of a reply; just read up about it, and you'll see that the situation was far more complex than you think... Oh, and Netanyahu.org can scarcely be claimed to represent the majority even of Israelis, let alone all Jews. - Mustafaa 21:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Which is the "rampant seculation" part?: Firstly, "nationalism" means all kinds, "religious" and "secular" so why confuse things?; The Arab uprisings against the Ottomans?; the influence of Fascism?; the role of the Moslem Brotherhood?; the influence of Pan Arabism?; the failed leadership of those like Nasser and Saddam Hussein?; Do you claim that these factors had "nothing" to do with the Arabs' modern hating for the Jews?;..... You know what, I think for now http://www.netanyahu.org/jewinarcounb.html JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48 may have a rational factual way about it, that may be hard to stomach for those not accustomed to hearing the "other side" of the story. IZAK 03:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Religious" nationalism barely existed at that point; it resumed much later in the twentieth century. As for the factors: yes, Arab uprisings against the Ottomans had nothing at all to do with hating Jews, and the rest of the factors you list, while relevant, are massively overstated. - Mustafaa 06:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi Arabs such as Anwar Sadat were imprisoned

Copied from User talk:IZAK

Hi IZAK -- It's a pretty serious allegation that Anwar Sadat was "pro-Nazi" as opposed to "anti-British" -- do you have some citations that are pretty clear that he was a supporter of the Nazis? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:22, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bcorr: I am surprised you do not know this piece of important history. See even the source Mustafaa cites [8] says clearly: "...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See some important examples from the web:

Islam’s Nazi Connections :"...Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba'ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time: "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf." Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them....Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islamism, fascism and terrorism : "Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat. Whether al-Banna, who had already been in contact with German agents since the 1936-39 Palestine uprising against the British, or someone else introduced Sadat and his free officer comrades to German military intelligence is not known. But in the summer of 1942, when Rommel's Afrikakorps stood just over 100 kilometers from Alexandria and were poised to march into Cairo, Sadat, Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the German attacking force and - with Brotherhood help - preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt's capital. A treaty with Germany including provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt had been drafted by Sadat, guaranteeing that "no British soldier would leave Cairo alive". When Rommel's push east failed at El Alamein in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail...." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Beyond the Pale: Nazism, Holocaust denial and the Arab world :"...When in 1953 a rumour spread that Hitler was still alive, the Egyptian newspaper Al Musawwar asked several leading Egyptian personalities to write him a personal letter. One of those who did so was Anwar Sadat. His message was this: "My dear Hitler! I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. Even if you appear to have been defeated, in reality you are the victor. You succeeded in creating dissentions between Churchill, the old man, and his allies, the Sons of Satan ... Germany will be reborn in spite of the Western and Eastern powers. There will be no peace unless Germany once again becomes what she was." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1942-1952, Egpyt: Nasser's Nazis and the CIA : "In the summer of 1942, when German General Erwin Rommel’s Afrikakorps were poised to march into Cairo, Anwar Sadat, Gamal Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the attacking force and – with help from the Muslim Brotherhood – were preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt’s capital. A treaty with Germany had been drafted by Sadat. It included provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt, and guaranteed that “no British soldier would leave Cairo alive.” When Rommel’s push east failed in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail. Islamist-fascist collaboration did not cease with war’s end. King Farouk brought large numbers of German military and intelligence personnel as well as ranking ex-Nazis into Egypt as advisors. It was a bad move. Several of the Germans, recognizing Farouk’s political weakness, soon began conspiring with Nasser and his “Free Officers,” who, in turn, were working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, to overthrow the king..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, thank you for your detailed reply with citations. I have to say that each of them -- such as the http://www.us-israel.org/about/index.shtml -- are very pro-Israel sites, and are not very balanced, IMHO -- and shouldn't be the basis for such strong allegations. I did some searching of my own, and the only citations I could find were eaither very clearly pro-Israel, right wing (like these from Campus Watch and Commentary magazine) were reader reviews of books like The Closed Circle here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566634407/002-9789435-4591258?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews -- or were comments left on bulletin boards, etc., like this one from the Seattle Times comment board: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/comments.html

Bcorr: The only question before us is whether Sadat was or was not a PRO-Nazi sympathiser, if not an outright Quisling (as the one from Norway). Regardless of the views of the Jewish sites (and they may be "forgiven" for being pro-Israel), the FACT remains the same about Sadat's pro-Nazi activities no matter which way you "slice it", to merely "categorize" his beliefs and activities as "anti-British" anti-colonialism misses the point, as the Nazi Germans ruthlesly COLONIZED all the lands they occupied, so what was Sadat's "rush"? One can only conclude he and his cohorts would have been happy with an "Islamic Republic of Nazi Egypt" which, mercifully, the British denied them. IZAK 02:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA

Also, the same Asia Times article you quote above [9] goes on to say:

"And yet another player fond of playing all sides against the middle had entered the game prior to Farouk's ouster: In 1951, the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Teddy, who in 1953 would organize the overthrow of elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh and install Reza Pahlavi as Shah) opened secret negotiations with Nasser. Agreement was soon reached that the US, post-coup, would assist in building up Egypt's intelligence and security forces - in the obvious manner, by reinforcing Nasser's existing Germans with additional, "more capable", ones. For that, CIA head Allen Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, one-time head of eastern front German military intelligence and by the early 1950s in charge of developing a new German foreign intelligence service. Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job - former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who at the end of the war had organized the infamous ODESSA network to facilitate the escape of high-ranking Nazis to Latin America (mainly Peron's Argentina) and Egypt. With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals galore. The CIA officer in charge of the Egypt assistance program was Miles Copeland, soon a Nasser intimate. "

Bcorr: We are NOT discussing the CIA here. What they did as part of ESPIONAGE/COUNTERESPIONAGE is a different subject. Your question was about Sadat's pro-Nazi leanings, and I cited the sources. Whether the sources are pro or anti anything is also not the point. The FACT remains that Sadat was a strong admirer of Hitler, the Jews' arch-enemy. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Egyptians during World War Two

I'm not denying the fact that both Egyptians and Israelis did everthing they could to expel the British from the Middle East, but so often in wartime, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- and even when wars are not raging, there are events like the US-Iran-Israel arms-for-hostages Iran-Contra affair that create strange bedfellows. And if you don't mind, I'm copying this all to Talk:Jew so others can weigh in. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 13:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr: Diplomatic and political dealings are one thing. All states and vested parties do it. But in the case of Sadat, his life's history proves that not only was he personally positive about Hitler, he also was determined to give the Nazi army under Rommel all the help it needed to enter Egypt. There was no "Israeli" policy to Nazi Germany, as there was no "Israel" until 1947. The MAJORITY of the Jewish population of Palestine was VERY pro-British, and clamored to enter its army to fight AGAINST the Nazis. Whatever minimal contacts there were with German officials was for the purpose of SAVING Jews from Hitler's gas-chambers, and keeping the doors of Palestine OPEN to Jewish immigration during the Holocaust. The Stern Gang acted to PROTEST Britain's closed-door policies, and NOT as a sign of any "liking" for Nazism, unlike Sadat and his cohorts who actually liked and emulated the Nazis. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the quotes are correct - though I don't put much confidence in their sources - then Sadat did negotiate with the Nazis, and appreciated their role in attacking other colonial powers. But that does not imply that he supported them, as BCorr pointed out, any more than the fact that early Israel had close relations with the USSR and got many of their weapons from Communist states means they were Stalinists. Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Sadat did much more than "negotiate" with the Nazis, he liked them and coddled up to them.

In contradistinction, remember, during World War Two Stalin was RIGHTLY admired by many Jews for many GOOD reasons:
He fought Hitler to the death; Stalin's Red Army, which had over half a million Jewish men and officers in it, were the ones that conquered Berlin and had the pleasure of bringing about HITLER'S DEATH! and the end of the evil Third Reich;
Indeed, many of Israel's early founders were Socialists and Communists and were close with the USSR, but at the same time they were also ZIONISTS and DEMOCRATS and thus were very wary of Stalin, as he was of them.
It was Stalin who thought he could take advantage of these politically vulnerable and ideologically kindred Jews at the founding of the State of Israel, as they needed and accepted his aid AGAINST the Arabs, but the Israelis were always fully commited to DEMOCRACY and opposed Stalin's totalitarianism;
(P.S. Stalin's first wife was Jewish, and his brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich, an athiestic communist hardliner, was on the Politburo with him till the end. Some have even speculated that it was Lazar Kaganovich who was behind Stalin's death in 1953, when Stalin began to plan the deportation of the the USSR's Jews to Siberia. Silly Stalin!) IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Rightly" admired by Jews? The man who killed 5-10 million people, according to the Wikipedia? Good to know that you've got a double standard about genocides. - Mustafaa 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Nobody is saying that Stalin was a "nice man", he was a tyrant. But he was a key ally against Hitler. During World War Two Stalin's USSR was one of the three Allied Powers and was welcomed as such by Winston Churchill of Great Britain and Franklin Roosevelt of the USA. Churchill himself justified his alliance with Stalin inspite of his own anti-Communism by saying in the British House of Commons: "If Hitler were to invade Hell I would support the Devil (against Hitler)". Stalin had an ambivelent relationship with his country's Jews, and they with him. From the point of view of SOVIET JEWS during the Holocaust, there was no "double standard", to them Stalin was the man who DECISIVELY DEFEATED and DESTROYED their arch-enemies: Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, and the Third Reich during the "Great Patriotic War", their name for Russia's struggle against Germany during World War Two. This does NOT mean to say that "EVERY" Jew on the planet is an "admirer" of Stalin, on the contrary, but the fact remains that to the millions of Russian Jews at the time he was their "hero". IZAK 01:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, he was a crucial part of the destruction of Nazism. But that's no excuse for admiring a mass murderer like Stalin. Zionism was the worst national threat the Palestinians faced at that time; does that make it OK if a Palestinian admires Hitler? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" indeed... - Mustafaa 01:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: You make it sound "so casual", sure this and sure that...Stalin was the war-time leader of the USSR and many secular communist Jews (NOT the religious or Orthodox Jews whom they hated and banned) had helped him build the new Soviet Union, they needed him to defeat Hitler for obvious reasons not just as Jews but as part of an eastern Slavic country that Hitler would have devoured. I strongly disagree with you: Zionism was NOT a threat to anyone. On the contrary, every Jew who arrived in Palestine brought greater wealth, creativity and jobs to Palestine. Most at one time were just simple Orthodox Jews who wanted to study Torah and pray in the Holy Land of their own ancestors. Later the secular Zionists arrived, but their focus was on CULTIVATING the LAND turning it from deserts into something good for everyone: Jew and gentile. It is fanatical inciters of Arab emotions against Jews who are to blame for the riots that killed innocent Jews in Palestine, then and now. REMEMBER: To this day it is Arab Palestinians who clamor for jobs in Israel and NOT vice-versa. If a Palestinian admires Hitler it only shows how deluded they are politically and ideoligically. IZAK 02:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And anyone who admires Stalin or Mao is just as deluded as someone who admires Hitler. I make no distinctions among murderers of millions. - Mustafaa 06:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: You know, for someone who gets very specific about PRECISE facts in Arab history, you tend to zoom out when the subject is not to your liking. This is not a comparative study of history's mass-murderers. The subject is "ethnic Jews" here. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others were all tyrants and cruel totalitarians. Mao had NOTHING to do with Jews, he ruled over a billion Chinese. Hitler ruled over most of Europe and he wanted ALL the Jews DEAD. Stalin ruled over the USSR, and he killed millions of people, INCLUDING many JEWS. It just so happens to be that during the Jews' darkest hour of the Holocaust, Stalin kept the borders of Russia open to any Jewish refugees fleeing eastwards to Siberia, and he was the one to destroy the Nazi killing machine and thus those Jews under Stalin were saved. So within that context the Russian Jews admired him. Soon he would be plotting to wipe them out to, but he failed. Jews today do NOT "respect" or "venerate" Stalin at all, (unlike some Arabs who idolize Hitler), but at the time he was viewed with favor by his Jewish countrymen for his role in destroying Hitler. IZAK 09:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Silly Stalin" !

"Silly Stalin"--now there's a vivid phrase! I remember the last days of Stalin, and somehow I could never picture calling him "silly." Especially not to his face, :) Cecropia 03:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Cecropia: Yeah, now, 50 years after his death, it's "official", Stalin can be called "silly" as we watch (formerly athiest) Putin shake hands with rabbis and give them awards, (former Soviet anti-Zionists) hugging Israeli diplomats, and (previously communist politicians) opening up Russia to the arch-capitalist "oligarchs" some of whom are Jewish by birth...what a world... IZAK 04:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, Brave New World! :) Cecropia 04:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baathists in Iraq & Syria

"The rise of the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq resulted in their large ancient communities fleeing as refugees." This is factually incorrect in two respects: practically the entire Iraqi Jewish community had fled before the rise of the Baath party, as pointed out earlier, and the Jews of Syria were actively prevented from leaving by the Baath Party until 1992. - Mustafaa 17:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Playing word games is not an alternative to history. The rise of the Baath parties was a process that took many years. By the time they took over in Iraq many Jews had fled PRECISELY BECAUSE it was the moment they were dreading. Similarly in Syria, it was the actualization of the Jews's worst nightmares as whoever remained were made into prisoners of the state, and that is why so may had tried to flee earlier. It was the OPPOSITE of "spring is in the air" for a very long time for the Middle East's Jews! IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Making provably false statements is not justified by the mere fact that they happen to fit what you think was the broader picture. - Mustafaa 21:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: So then you are saying that the Baathist phenomenon, as represented by Nasser of Egypt, Assad of Syria, (they were "united" through the United Arab Republic), and Saddam Hussein of Iraq should be somehow "EXCUSED" and "NOT" be taken as a major historical "sympton" of rabid hatred of Jews in those lands? Baathism was rooted in Fascism, and molded itself as such and was in the making for over fifty years, it represents an "age" in modern Arab history that contributed to the exodus of the Sephardic Jews from those lands. IZAK 02:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, Nasser was not a Baathist (and Assad was not in power during the UAR); second, anti-Semitism is a quite minor part of the evils of Baathism, and the people who have suffered worst from the two Baathist governments by far have been Kurds and Iranians in Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, not Jews; third, Baathism is not an "age" in modern Arab history, it's a sad part of the history of precisely two Arab countries, and the present of one. It never made its way into the vast majority of Arab countries. - Mustafaa 06:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: The point is that the conditions were good enough in both Egypt and Syria that they could actually be "united" in a United Arab Republic. Nasser was also taken with the infusion of socialist, in fact SOVIET ideals, to the point, that he allied himself with the USSR and they armed him to the teeth, just as the Soviets INFLUENCED and ARMED Syria and Iraq. All three of these countries had OVERTHROWN their own Arab-style monarchies, and opted instead for SOVIET-style centralized economies and extremely SECULAR life-styles and outlooks rooted in a kind of socialistic and xenophobic "Arab egalitarianism", but with strong military central control of the levers of power. So, Egypt both before and after Nasser, Syria before and after Assad, and Iraq before and during Saddam, all SHARED a common ideology which in Syria and Iraq was formaly called "Baathism" and in Egypt it was "Nasserism" (also part of "Pan Arabism"). The net result for the Jews was that it was bad for any remaining Jewish citizens, and bad for Israel as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq always targeted Israel for war and destruction since it blocked their various paths. IZAK 09:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Someone (User:131.165.63.132, contribs) thought it would be nice to list this under Wikipedia:Cleanup, without leaving {{msg:cleanup}} here. I've removed this and made a fuss on the talk page. Please support me - the allegation is ridiculous. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Israelite"

Current text has:

In modern English, "Israelite" is not commonly used in any context, but one can refer to "religious Jews" or "secular Jews."

I would think it would be more accurate to say:

In modern English, outside of Jamaica, where the word "Israelite" has been appropriated by the Rastafarians, "Israelite" is not commonly used in any context, but one can refer to "religious Jews" or "secular Jews."

Any reason not to change this? After all, Jamaican English is no less "modern" than US or UK English. -- Jmabel 05:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that this may open a "pandora's box" of all those groups, not just Jamaicans, but also the Mormons and all groups that claim to be "Israelite" or the "Lost Tribes of Israel". The article is talking in terms of the treminolgy as it applies to the Jewish people as an ethnicity and NOT to any other groups or sects that have "adopted" the name "Israelite" for themselves to become exceptions by name. IZAK 20:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What about the fact that Israelite is used in Modern English to refer to Biblical Jews? Rmhermen 20:49, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Given that, I am going to edit in a wy that I think embraces all of that. -- Jmabel 23:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israeli legal definition of a Jew

Is it strictly true to say, as the article now does, "..[T]he modern Israeli legal definition of a Jew excludes those who have joined other religions." I suspect this is untrue on at least one count and perhaps two:

I believe that (at most) the issue is renouncing Judaism, not joining another religion. If, for example, as a Jew, I join a Buddhist congregation, but do not renounce my status as a Jew (since Buddhism certainly makes no such demand), I do not believe this has any bearing on how I am legally viewed by the State of Israel.
Further -- and especially because this is an article on Jews as an ethnic group, not as a religion -- how does all this relate to the Israeli Law of Return? After all, the Nazis were not slow to persecute ethnic Jews in Austria who were practicing Roman Catholics. Would Israel not recognize people similarly persecuted today as Jews?

If the answer is that I am wrong on these points, I'd sure appreciate sourcing rather than blind assertion. -- Jmabel 06:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then we have the question of whether any government can define a "Jew." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The modern Israeli definition of a Jew for purposes of Israeli citizenship"? -- Cecropia 06:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anan ben David and Karaites as Jews

Who are today's "true" Karaites?

Recently, user User:Yoshiah_ap has been adding material about the Karaites as Jews. Each time I insert material describing the non-Jewish practices of Karaite groups, they are marginalized. IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you're going to post a message, don't cross-post. I don't like to have to post my replies to multiple places. 2) Give an example of one. 3) Shall I start posting about Non-Jewish practices that the Talmudic Rabbis incorporated? 4) Should I start blabbing about the lies that you have made against Karaites, such as that most Jews do not regarding Karaites as Jewish, when the Israeli Cheif Rabbinate made the ruling that not only we are Jews, but that Rabbinical Jews should marry Karaites in order to assimilate them! Besides my user talk and this page, how many other pages have you posted this to?

Yoshia: I only contacted you on your user talk and here. Sorry if that has confused you, as I only wanted to get your attention.IZAK 07:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not correct. I've also seen it on I think at least 2 other pages, including the Anan ben David. If you wanted to get my attention, you could have simply left me an email. --Yoshiah ap 01:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah:The present discussion is only taking place here. Does that mean that you feel "safer" in YOUR one-sided posted postings on this subject all over the web and Wikpedia that you seem to think you "own". This is not about your "personal" beliefs, this is about a big SCHISM in the history of the Jew that split the Jewish people. IZAK 08:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is VERY confusing: If you as a Karaite DO NOT ACCEPT the rabbis, so why do you cite those self-same rabbis as "proof" that you are "Jewish"??? Either you are for the (Orthodox) rabbis or against them, but you can't have it both ways: Denigrating and hating them and then foisting rabbinical "rulings and opinions" on others (from any of the other "streams" of Judaism) who may not accept that (Orthodox chief rabbinate) ruling, as NOT ALL JEWS accept the Israeli chief rabbinate of the secular state of Israel. At this point in history, most Jews neither know nor accept the Karaites as they don't even know who they are and that they even "exist". IZAK 07:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- As we say here in America, take a chill pill. Where are you getting this idea that I hate Rabbinic Jews? I don't hate Rabbinic Jews, my dearest sister is a "Rabbinical" Jew. Answer that question, and then I'll answer the rest of yours. --Yoshiah ap 01:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: Again, you are "personalizing" this subject far too much. This is not about our siblings and how much we do or don't love them (which "proves" nothing in a forum of analyzing and explaining something that happened in Jewish history). Your sister may be a lovely person as you are no doubt too, but so what? Stick to the subject. The question is: Why do you praise the Israeli Orthodox rabbis when at the same time you go about besmirching all the other Orthodox rabbis throughout time who believe/d the same things that the Israeli Chief rabbis maintain? So which is it? IZAK 08:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Who is User:Yoshiah_ap representing as he needs to have a NPOV about Karaites

JUST WHO ARE THE "KARAITES" that User:Yoshiah_ap is "representing"? IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What is an NPOV? I know that POV = Point of View. And, I am a Karaite. If you don't believe it check out my webpage.

Yoshiah: FYI: A "NPOV" on Wikipedia means "Neutral Point of View", thus it is exactly BECAUSE you claim to be a Karaite, that you must NOT expect that people should accept your opinions which may NOT be "neutral" from a detached objective scholarly perspective as you are very EMOTIONALLY over-invested in your subject and therefore you may not be open to other "neutral" opinions on the subject of Karaism... That you have your own private website on Karaism is TOTALLY meaningless and irrelevant, as it is not a requirement, neither a plus nor minus, in fact it means nothing on Wikipedia. IZAK 06:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the definitions. Are you honestly suggesting that I am not a Karaite? If so, I'll be glad to meet you when I visit Jersualem to disproove that. Or would you like some paperwork from Karaite leaders? Carefully read this paraphrase of what you just said: it is exactly BECAUSE you claim to be a Rabbinate, that you must NOT expect that people should accept your opinions which may NOT be "neutral" from a detached objective scholarly perspective as you are very EMOTIONALLY over-invested in your subject and therefore you may not be open to other "neutral" opinions on the subject of Karaism... Also, when you have a website that promote one teaching or another, it sorta backs up your claim that you believe in such and such a thing.

Yoshiah: Again, you are falling victim to over-personalization of the role of contributors to Wikipedia. We are all entitled to our personal beliefs in an open society. However, nowhere on Wikipedia have I said that I am a "Rabbinate", whatever that is, since that word is not in common English usage. On the other hand, it is YOU who constantly reminds us that you are a "Karaite" and that, that somehow "entitles" you or means that you "have to be accepted" by the world at large as "THE" "VOICE" of Karaites on Wikipedia and the Internet. IZAK 09:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

How many "real" Karaites are alive today: Numbers please!

Another problem is that User:Yoshiah_ap is making the Karaites sound like a large group. Just how big is the Karaite movement TODAY? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Or what? IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Look before you leap. You also posted this question to my User Talk Page, which already has your answer. I have *NEVER* tried to say that we are a big group today. I said that during what is known as the Golden Age of Karaism, we comprised 40% of Jewry - that's the number given by Rabbinical Sources. And it was back in the middle ages. In the future, please do not put words in my mouth.

Yoshiah: Yes, I did subsequently see that you claim that there are "30,000" Karaites in Israel. But what does that figure mean exactly? Practicing Karaites? "True believers"? "Religious" or "secular" ones? Would THEY all agree with being classed as "Karaites", and if not why not? IZAK 07:17, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, they would all agree on being classified as Karaites. If you don't believe me, I invite you to visit the Old Karaite Synagogue in Jerusalem.

Yoshiah: Numbers please! You have still not given any (estimated or rough) population figures for just how small the Karaites really are to today! IZAK 04:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says:Anan ben David's true role: He praised Islam and Christianity

Furthermore User:Yoshiah_ap says that it is incorrect to say that Anan ben David is the founder of Karaism, but when it is said that Anan ben David venerated Islam, it is a "lie" and asks for sources.

Well (and I hope that User:Yoshiah_ap will not now dash off and change the Anan ben David page) it says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anan_ben_David

"Anan Ben David opposed this move, and along with his followers he proclaimed himself the antiexilarch. This step was construed by the Muslim authorities as rebellion against the authority of the calif, who had formally invested Josiah with the position. Such an act on the part of a dhimmi (follower of a religion tolerated by Islam) in a Muslim state was a capital offense.

When Anan's proclamation of himself as exilarch became known, he was arrested by the authorities one Sunday in 767, and thrown into prison, to be executed on the ensuing Friday, as guilty of high treason. Luckily for Anan, he met in jail a prominent fellow-prisoner, the founder of the Muslim casuistic school of the Hanifites, al-Nu'man ibn Thabit, surnamed Abu Ḥanifah. He gave Ana Ben David advice which saved his life: He should set himself to expound all ambiguous precepts of the Torah in a fashion opposed to the traditional interpretation, and make this principle the foundation of a new religious sect. He must next get his partizans to secure the presence of the calif himself at the trial — his presence not being an unusual thing at the more important prosecutions. Anan was to declare that his religion was quite a different one from that of his brother and of the rabbinical Jews, and that his followers entirely coincided with him in matters of religious doctrine; which was an easy matter for Anan to say, because the majority of them were opposed to the rabbis.

Ben David and his friends complied with this advice, and in the presence of the calif Almansur (754-775) Anan defended himself. Moreover, Anan won for himself the favor of the calif by his deep veneration for Muhammed as the prophet of the Arab peoples, and by the declaration that his new religion, in many ways was similar to Islam.

Anan now devoted himself to the development of his new religion and its new code. His Sefer ha-Mitzvot ("The Book of the Precepts") was published about 770.

Anan Ben David adopted many principles and opinions of other anti-rabbinic forms of Judaism that had previously existed. He took much from the old Sadducees and Essenes, whose remnants still survived, and whose writings—or at least writings ascribed to them—were still in circulation. Thus, for example, these older sects prohibited the burning of any lights and the leaving of one's dwelling on the Sabbath; they also enjoined the actual observation of the new moon for the appointment of festivals, and the holding of the Pentecost festival always on a Sunday.

From the Isawites and the Yudganites immediately preceding this epoch, he borrowed the recognition and justification of Jesus as the prophet for the followers of Christianity, and of Muhammed for those of Islam; in this way ingratiating himself with professors of those creeds." IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal concerning Anan ben David

1) Anybody can make a wikipedia page. Citing a wikipedia page does not proove anything. I am asking for an actual historical source. I have the four oldest accounts of Anan ben David. 3 of those are Rabbinical, and one of those is from Ya'acov Al-Kirkisani, a famous Karaite Sage.

2) Veneration of Christianity and Islam is nowhere to be found in the four oldest accounts of Anan ben David. Considering the oldest of those four accounts was written over 800 years after the death of Anan, serious questions about the accuracy of it's account and that of later sources must be answered.

Here is what a 12th century Rabbinic account says:

"He (Anan) said, "The religion of my brother employs a calender based upon caculation of the time of the new moon and intercalation of leap years by cycles, whereas mind depends upon actual observation of the new moon and intercalation regulated by the ripening of new grain." Since the king's religion likewise employed the latter method, Anan thus gained his favor and good will."

Yoshiah: The (Talmudic) rabbis were always careful with their words. They were careful not to "incriminate" themselves in the Middle Ages at a time when Islam and Chritianity were the most powerful doctrines of the times. The words you have given here YOURSELF, prove that the rabbis viewed Anan's arguments as CONNECTING with the Islamic king, as you quote: "Since the king's religion likewise employed the latter method, Anan thus gained his favor and good will." Anyone familiar with the SUBTLE writing style of the ancient rabbis will immediately recognize the fact that the message here is that "Anan and the Islamic king connected", in contradistinction to the fact that "the rabbis and Anan did NOT connect", which is NO praise in the context of the constant, fierce, unyielding condemnation of Karaism, or Ananism, by the rabbis.IZAK 07:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC) throughout history.[reply]

- Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't. The text says that the Caliph favored Anan because he adhered to the biblical practice of basing his calender on the sightings of the New Moons, like his religion did. At best, it is a far stretch to say that the account says he recognized Anan as a prophet. At worst, your claim is an aarogant propaganda intented to spread lies about a person.

Yoshiah: Since you yourself maintain that Anan ben David was an "Ananite" and "NOT" a Karaite at all and was denounced by the Karaite leader (Kirkistani I think you mentioned):

So why do you get so worked up when Anan is characterized as a devious religious opportunist perhaps like the "reverend" Jim Jones or David Koresh, cult leaders concerned more about their own egos than about the welfare and life of their followers? IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already answered that question. If you claim that he founded Karaism, claims about what he did or did not do will automatically be linked with Karaism.

Yoshiah: I fail to see your logic. You say that you "defend" Anan ben David so that things that are said about him will NOT get associated with Karaism. This is a VERY peculiar "argument" don't you think? By the same token then, should Jews "defend" the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because most anti-Semites associate the "Protocols" with "Jews"? You therefore must agree that it makes no sense logically to "defend" Anan in order to "fend off" attacks on Karaism that may or may not result from it. Logic and fairness would dictate that you reject him because he does "not" speak for Karaism, or he is an embarrassment to Karaism. Which is it? IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem according to rational logic, that if Anan cared for the Jews, he would NOT have led a "reverse Exodus" taking followers away from the religion of his ancestors, don't you think? IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing this would be arguing theology, and that's not what Wikipedia was here for.

Yoshiah: NO! We are talking about POST-theological consequences, about how this effected the Jews as an ethnicity. What Anan ben David did (with whatever "theological rationales") RESULTED in a definite SPLIT and SCHISM in the Jewish people in effect creating a DIFFERENT GROUP of people, many of whom subsequently lost contact with the main body of the Jewish people and who even opted NOT to be called Jews at all, such as the Turkic Karaites for example. So what started as a "religious" issue ended up as an ethnic "reality". IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Anan ben David deemed unfit for leadership by his own rabbinic contemporaries in the first place? IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Again remember that these are ACADEMIC hypothetical discussions. IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another topic that would get into a theological argument. Simply, he disagreed with Rabbinic teachings.

Yoshiah: Again, NO! This cannot be waived off as a "theological argument" because it was NOT simply about religion. It was ALSO about Anan ben David's rage and fury at being rejected for the Exilarch lay leadership position by the rabbinical heads who chose his younger brother instead. It seems the rabbis were already aware of his negative attitudes BEFORE he "decided" to create his own "new" fateful "religion" resulting in the eventual schism between those who became his disciples and those who remained loyal to the rabbis.IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a "CHAT ROOM" getting flooded with emotions, rather we are attempting to arrive at an understanding of someone who founded Karaism according to most scholars, or a cult called "Ananism" by the Karites themselves. So which is it? IZAK 09:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Then as I said, take a chill pill. You've tried to claim that I hate Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism, a claim that is absolutely false.--Yoshiah ap 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: This is not about "me" or "you". This is about the schism in the Jewish people that resulted after Karaism was founded, THEY are the ones who definitely have negative attitudes to the rabbis. I know nothing about your personal attitudes beyond what you claim for yourself. IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

3) No one questions that Anan used other sources for his religion. He used Rabbinical Interperetation methods and his beliefs were almost the same of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, Ya'acov Al-Kirkisani wrote:

"Hay, the president of the Rabbinate Academny, together with his father, tranlsated the book of Anan from the Aramaic into Hebrew with his father and encountered nothing in it of which they could not discover the source in Rabbinate Lore."

Now, do you have any sources for your claims, or not?

Yoshiah: What do you mean by "No one questions that Anan used other sources for his religion"? QUESTION/S: What are these "other sources"? If it was Islam or Christianity, why don't you say so openly? Are you "justifying" the fact that Anan adopted Islamic and Christian doctrines with the claim that he also (equally?) used "Rabbinical (Judaism) Interperetation methods"? Did Anan have a (religious) moral conscience or was he an "equal opportunity" twister of all religions to suit his won personal needs and ends out of hate and spite for the rabbis? And finally, if you claim to be a "Karaite" and not an "Ananite" so then why are you so emotionally invested in "protecting" Anan yourself as it makes no sense to present favorable arguments on behalf of someone you claim to reject, unless there is something that you are hiding for whatever reason? IZAK 07:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- IZAK : 1) I mean just that. Everyone knows he used the writings of other Jewish sects in basing his beliefs. Almost all of it could be traced to Rabbinate beliefs. 2) About Anan - we know very little about him. The older the source about him, the more fanciful it gets (from all perspectives) 3)Because many Rabbinates like yourself say that Anan ben David is the founder of Karaism, and thus will use him to level attacks against us. Some Rabbinates even make the claims that we worship Mohammed - and these sort of lies disgust me. Is there something you are hiding, IZAK?

Yoshiah: Please use correct current understandable English words. There is no such word in use as a "Rabbinate/s" when talking about a private person (like me or you). The word "Rabbinate" with an "upper-case" (capital) "R" usually refers to the name of an "institution" such as the the "Chief Rabbinate of Israel", sometimes shortened to the "Rabbinate". The word "rabbinate", with a "lower-case" ("small") "r" means the "professional field" that rabbis work in which is called the "rabbinate". To call another person a "Rabbinate" or even a "rabbinate" without even knowing who they are (I may not even be a real person :-) is both inaccurate and a sign of desperation. In SCHOLARLY circles there is reference to "rabbinical" Jews, the ones who have had their "religious status" derived from having been the followers of the rabbis (and not of the "rabbinate"). The known and commonly used names and categories are Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, religious, secular, Israeli... IZAK 09:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the term "Rabbinate" has also been used to describe an adherant of Rabbinic Judaism, just as "Karaite" is used to describe an adherant of Karaite Judaism.--Yoshiah ap 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: Never heard this before. Where is this done today? IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbinical opposition to Anan, the Karaites, and Karaism

The Karaites: Challengers of Rabbinic Authority:

"...The major rabbinic opponent of the Karaites was Saadia Gaon. He issued articles, letters, and responsa attacking the doctrine of the Karaites, and even declared that they were not Jews...Saadia successfully defended rabbinic authority against the Karaite philosophical invasion...According to Rabbinic law, Karaites are considered heretical Jews; they were treated as Jews in every country they lived in until the eighteenth century, when Russia annexed Poland. Catherine the Great then declared that Karaites were exempt from the double tax for Jews. From that time to the present, European countries, including Nazi Germany, distinguished the Karaites as non-Jews..." IZAK 08:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, if it weren't for Saadia, we might have died out. His attacks on us brought us more converts from Rabbinism than we had ever seen before. So much for a successfull defense --Yoshiah ap 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: Uniting yourself with the Karaites in a personal fashion and talking about yourself as "us" meaning the Karaites (vs. the "Rabbinate" meaning "them") is very revealing, unfortunate and clear proof that when it comes to this subject, you have NOT mastered the Wikipedia art and practice of NPOV. IZAK 10:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- IZAK : This is no different than speaking about yourself as an Orthodox Jew.

Yoshiah: Nowhere do I talk of "Us" vs. "them", whereas you do it constantly. Again: PLEASE refrain from personalizing discusions, writings, and editing on Wikipedia, as it is most unbecoming of mature dispassionate critical scholarship. IZAK 05:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Culture 750-1095: Abbasid Caliphate 750-945:

...When the Jewish Exilarch Solomon died in 761, the Geonim leaders, Judah the Blind at Sora and Dudai at Pumbeditha, prevented Anan ben David from succeeding by choosing his younger brother Chananya. Anan rejected the Judaism of the Talmud and wanted to return to a strict adherence to the Bible, which had recently been made more available to non-scholars by adding a system of vowel points. The followers of Anan called themselves Karaites and their adversaries Rabbanites, meaning "partisans of authority." Anan was put in prison, but he was released by the Caliph when he claimed that he was not a rebel against Judaism but the founder of a new religion. After the time of Anan the Exilarchate was no longer hereditary; but the presidents of the academies directed the election of the Exilarch..." IZAK 08:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

PDF document http://www.bfbs.org.uk/documents/Masoretes.pdf

"The Masoretes and the Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew": "...(Page 6):...In the second half of the eighth century the ruling Caliph refused to confirm the succession Anan ben David, choosing instead his younger brother. Anan's reaction was to set up a "new religion" which, he claimed, was a compromise between Judaism and Islam...his followers, at first called Ananites adopted the name Karaites (properly Quaraites, from the Hebrew verb to read) These 'Bible readers' coined the term Rabbinites for those who followed the authority of the Talmud..." IZAK 08:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources please. Cite a single writing of Anan that uses the term Karaite. That fact is, you won't find one. Also, are you aware that the Masoretic Text was written by Karaites? (The Karaite Ben Asher Family, to be exact)

Yoshiah: There has ALWAYS been more than "one" form of Karaism: SEE: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm "After Anan's death Saul, his son, succeeded him as exilarch of the Karaites, but Anan's disciples separated from him, as they did not agree with him about some ceremonies, according to Saul's interpretation of biblical passages. They became a distinct sect calling themselves Ananites; so it also happened after the death of Saul, who was succeeded by Josiah, his son. And so almost every age sprang a new Karaite sect with a name of its own, each interpreting Scripture in its own way. Some of them will be mentioned presently, It is self-evident that an attempt to get at the profound meaning of the Scriptures was the business of every such sect; through their activity the knowledge of Hebrew grammar, of Massorah, the vowel-points and punctuation marks, was diffused; theological philosophizing was also not strange to some Karaites, as they had to explain such words as God's "hand," "eye," "finger," which they were unwilling to take literally and materialize God, just as the other Jews. Thus gradually a large literature sprang among the Karaites, not inferior, taken as a whole, to the Talmud itself in bulk." IZAK 06:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, make up your mind. Are you here to speak truthfully about Karaism, or simply to spread false propaganda about Karaism?--Yoshiah ap 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: Take a close look and you will see that I am NOT citing my "own" opinions. This is not about "you" and "me". I am quoting reliable open sources researched on the Internet with the links provided. The past cannot be "undone" by emotional shrieks that the Karaites are "getting a bad rap". The fact remains that they split off from the body of the Jews and chose to create a break-away religion. They have only themselves to blame for the fact that they dwindled over time and have become just a side-note to present day Judaism of any stream. Religious schisms are complex affairs and those who cause them must carry the responsibity. Our job is to look critically at what happened and not to get emotionally involved defending Anan ben David and his doomed religious movement. That's the difference beween dispassionate, yet critical, scholarship and propaganda,(you seem to take any critique as propaganda, why?) IZAK 09:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- IZAK: You have not provided a real source for any claim you have made. I have the manuscripts that were recorded about Anan ben David. My only request has been that you cite a source manuscript for you claims. Stop making this more than this is, and simply provide a source. I have all the sources up to 800 years after the death of Anan, and they mention nothing that you claim.

Yoshiah: I cannot fathom your logic again. You claim that since in his own lifetime Anan ben David did "not" use the term "Karaite",(because as you claim, no "manuscripts" of his time show that Anan or others used that term about him) therefore "he" is "not" a "Karaite" because neither he nor people who knew him called him a "Karaite", and so therefor what he said, did, and taught in promoting Biblical "literalism" and ferociously rejecting and denigrating "Rabbinism" should be categorized as "Ananism" and not "Karaism" (even though the net HISTORICAL result of his activities seem no different to what is known as Karaism to most scholars). Allow me to say that this would be like saying that since Karl Marx (whose parents were Jews who had become Christians) "wrote" about communism but in his lifetime was NOT known as a "communist" and the communist movement had not taken hold yet in his lifetime, but he was better known as a radical political journalist and writer in his own lifetime, should therefore be known "ONLY" as a "Journalistic Marxist" and "not" as a "communist" even though he popularized the IDEAs and NOTIONS that EQUAL "Communism" in historical development, in his writings. The point is undeniable, that just as Marx's writings and teachings about Communism contributed to its rise and popularity, similarly, Anan ben David's KNOWN teachings and writings (whatever he or others called them in his days) contributed to the rise of Karaism. Do you follow? IZAK 05:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the "dispute" over Karaism

This dispute centers over a few questions:

1) What, exactly, did Anan do?

He petitioned the Muslim authorities so that Non-Rabbinic Jews would not have to be accountable to the Rabbinic Laws. Where he lived, they could be prosecuted for not following Rabbinic Halakha.--Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: Is that "all" that Anan ben David did? He just "petitioned" the Muslims? Makes it sound like a modern-day tame voter-registration drive. Anan ben David launched ALL OUT WAR against his fellow Jews: See the original Wikipedia article for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anan_ben_David See also as an example of the scope of Anan's doings: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME:

"...This man was Anan ben David, nephew of the exilarch Solomon, in Bagdad, who had died childless. Anan expected to be elected as his successor, but his younger brother was chosen instead, and he was rejected because of his liberal ideas and want of sympathy with the Talmud. Then he publicly began to make war on the Talmud and Talmudists, and became the head of all its opponents and ill-wishers. He made his headquarters at Jerusalem, after having been, it seems, obliged to leave Babylonia. There he assumed the title of exilarch, and around him were assembled a great multitude who made, war on the Oral Law, its scholars, and in particular on the two colleges of Sura and Pumbeditha."IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"By his general precept, "Search well in the Scriptures," he declared as naught the whole Oral Law. And wishing to find favor in the eyes of the Caliphs, who fixed the dates of their festivals by observation of the new moon, he also renewed this custom, once in force among the Jews while the Temple had existed, repealing thus the calculation of R. Adda received among all Talmudists. He openly said to the Caliph Almanzur that the Jews had been guilty of persecuting Jesus and opposing Mahomet, though (said he) both these men did much to drive idolatry out of existence, and cannot be attacked without guilt. Of the first he said that he had been a holy man who did not want to appear as a prophet, or a god, but only desired to reform the faith which the Pharisees had perverted. Of the second he said that be really was a prophet for the Arabs, only he does not believe that the Law (of Moses) is repealed by Mahommedanism.IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"His first work was to separate himself from the Jews by fixing the date of Pentecost to be fifty days after the first Sabbath after Passover, as the Sadducees fixed it formerly. The dates of New Year and the Day of Atonement, Passover and the Feast of Booths were determined by watching for the new moon, which did not agree with the Jewish dates. As in the leap year one month is added to the year, he allowed, in case of need, to begin Passover when barley is ripe in the fields. The Phylacteries (not a grave ceremony among the Jews, at any rate), the four species of the Lulab and the semi-holiday Hanuka (Dedication), he abolished. On the other hand he made the observation of Sabbath more burdensome, so that the lighting of candles was prohibited on the eve of Sabbath, even by a non-Jew, also the leaving of one's house during Sabbath when most neighbors are not Jews, i.e. Karaites; the dietary laws he also made stricter, so as to prohibit his adherents eating in company with Jews for the latter are not careful enough and oftentimes eat with Gentiles."IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Soon Anan saw that if every one were left to interpret the Biblical text according to his own mind, etc., his sect would be split, and not endure (as actually was the case in the course of time, as will be explained further on), and that a fixed commentary is needed at least for those passages which can by no means be interpreted literally. Therefore he claimed many great authorities, long deceased, as Karaites, and declared that R. Jehuda b. Tabai, the colleague of Simeon b. Shetah, etc. Shamai the elder, the colleague of Hillel the Elder, and other such, were some of the founders of their sect, and he ascribed to them some interpretations of passages which he claimed to have received by tradition from them. "Abandon the Talmud and Mishna," he said to his followers, "and I will make you a Talmud of my own, according to the traditions I have." Though in reality he took the rules of the Mishna as basis, yet he said that as far as details are concerned he is as wise as the sages of the Mishna, or more so, and can construe the Biblical texts by his own intellect."IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"His hatred of the Talmud became so great that he said that if he could have swallowed the Talmud, he would cast himself into a lime-kiln, that it might be burned with him and leave no vestige of its existence. Thus the people of Israel separated itself then into two hostile hosts. The Talmudists declared the Karaites not to be Jews, and forbade to give them any holy ceremony to perform, while the Karaites said of the followers of the rabbis that they are Jewish sinners, and it is sinful to intermarry with them. The city of Jerusalem witnessed for the third time a splitting of Israel into parties." IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

2) Is there any possible way to find out what Anan did, exactly?

I can provide the four oldest accounts of Anan ben David in English if it'd help. 3 are of Rabbinic origin, one of Karaite origin. Considering that the oldest of these was written 800 years after the death of Anan, I would question the reliability of any older accounts.--Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See above, from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME IZAK 07:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

3) What is a Karaite? Is Karaism a religion distinct from Judaism?

Hi Rickyrab (Rickyrab): I have already cited some sources from a web-search above, anyone can read more if they have the time:

The issue of "Karaism" vis-a-vis Judaism, and the historicity of Anan ben David in fomenting the "Karaite" movement is not "my" "personal" hobby-horse at all as it is a well-worn path.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Of Judaism's approximate 14,000,000 million "adherents" today (by "birth" or by "belief") it would be fair to say that there may be a literal "few thousand" who openly acknowledge being Karaites or adherents of Karaism. It may be a case of "much ado about nothing" as history has already given its verdict: Karaism may have had it's day/s in the sun, but by now it is a mere foot-note in the annals of modern Jewish history.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The question is NOT what "IZAK" or "Yoshiah" "believe" or "feel" about the subject of Karaism as it is FAR TOO BIG A SUBJECT that has been around for a long time and is very clear and well known.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to cite esoteric "ancient texts", you can research the subject on the Internet to learn that all branches of Judaism always rejected Karaism as a "belief system" while at the same time individual "Karaites" may have been accepted back into the Jewish community if they renounced the Karaite doctrines which is what the purpose of the present Chief Rabbinate may or may not be.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The Chief Rabbinate of Israel NEVER SAID that KARAISM IS "kosher", on the contrary, Karaism remains a paradoxical and confused religious movement DISTINCT from "normative" Judaism because (just a few obvious contradictions that come up):IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A Karaite is a "sola scripturala" (sp?) Jew. In other words, a Karaite Jew accepts the entire Hebrew bible as being authorative in his life, but does not accept the Talmud as being binding.--Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah: You are evading a more serious presentation. Question: What if a Karaite says that he is NOT a Jew but just a "Karaite", unlike your definition that starts off with the incorrect assumption that all Karaites are "Karaite Jews" which is just not true, as many Karaites have claimed openly over the course of history that they are not "Jews" even though they may observe parts of the Torah and keep some of the Jewish festivals in some fashion. IZAK 07:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

4) Is Izak "emotionally invested" in Anan, and is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I think he is because he has resorted to claiming that I hate Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism, and he has not provided a source for his claims. --Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiah:No "personal" statements have been said against you or anyone else. We are having an open-minded intellectual serious DEBATE about Karaism. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is happening due to the constant personal references you make to yourself and about how you IMAGINE others may "feel" about you, which is maybe just a smokescreen for dealing with the subject in a forthright manner as befits Wikipedia.IZAK 06:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi everyone. Wouldn't it be safe to say that if this this person is a Karaite, that he would know if a certain person founded a his religion or not? Given that he/she is a Karite, and that he/she can refer to actual manuscripts to back up his/her position, I'd be slightly more inclined to believe him/her about what Karaites believe. It's obvious to me that they're both a bit emotionally involved, but it seems to me that an Orthodox Jew telling a person what a Karaite Jew believes would be like a Southern Baptist Minister telling a person what a Mormon Missionary believes. There is bound to be some errors because of the absolute opposition between the two. --65.122.112.41 23:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't know what Anan did, but he did it a long time ago, so... it's hard to come to a conclusion without accounting for confusion and the passage of time. As for your controversies over the issues, perhaps we ought to come to a compromise, in which Izak can state his views and reasons for such views, and Yoshia can state his views and reasons, and the final article can take the most likely items to be the truth - or items that both sides agree on more than other items - and that could approximate a NPOV. Building a true NPOV will take plenty of work on the Karaism issue, though. Rickyrab 05:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My only request is that IZAK provide a source for his claims. They are not to be found in any accounts of Anan within 800 years of his death. --Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

--Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is Karaism Judaism and does it belong with the article on Jew?

Hi Rickyrab (Rickyrab): I have already cited some sources from a web-search above, anyone can read more if they have the time:

The issue of "Karaism" vis-a-vis Judaism, and the historicity of Anan ben David in fomenting the "Karaite" movement is not "my" "personal" hobby-horse at all as it is a well-worn path.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Of Judaism's approximate 14,000,000 million "adherents" today (by "birth" or by "belief") it would be fair to say that there may be a literal "few thousand" who openly acknowledge being Karaites or adherents of Karaism. It may be a case of "much ado about nothing" as history has already given its verdict: Karaism may have had it's day/s in the sun, but by now it is a mere foot-note in the annals of modern Jewish history.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that there only a few thousand Karaites in existence is at best a lie. --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Fact: Karaites exist. Fact: They practice something called "Karaism", and apparently they are perpetuating Karaism. Who cares how many there are, so long as Karaism goes on?

Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The question is NOT what "IZAK" or "Yoshiah" "believe" or "feel" about the subject of Karaism as it is FAR TOO BIG A SUBJECT that has been around for a long time and is very clear and well known.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why do you insinuate that I hate the Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism? --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably because Izak might have only been thinking (at the time he stated his view of the question) about how Yoshiah feels about Karaism, while at the time he made his insinuation, he was thinking about how Yoshiah feels about Rabbinic Judaism. Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to cite esoteric "ancient texts", you can research the subject on the Internet to learn that all branches of Judaism always rejected Karaism as a "belief system" while at the same time individual "Karaites" may have been accepted back into the Jewish community if they renounced the Karaite doctrines which is what the purpose of the present Chief Rabbinate may or may not be.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I can safely say one thing: Reform Judaism wouldn't reject Karaism as a "belief system". I'm pretty sure Karaitic practice would be acceptable within the bounds of Reform Judaism! Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only asked you to cite a source. Even a Rabbinic Source. Rabbinic claims about Karaism on the web have many errors, and confuse us with other middle age sects of Judaism. It is such a problem that Congregation Orah Saddiqim has four pages dedicated to correcting these. For example, one says that we have attacked the Masoretic Text, when the Karaite Ben Asher family were the ones who produced it, another claims how it is forbidden to don tefillin in a certain way - that is even more bogus because we do not don Teffillin. If Izak wants to include fanciful accounts written over a millenia after the death of Anan ben David, then I will also include the fanciful accounts of a Rabbinic Assasination attempt on him. But I'd rather keep to reliable, accurate accounts.
The Chief Rabbinate of Israel NEVER SAID that KARAISM IS "kosher", on the contrary, Karaism remains a paradoxical and confused religious movement DISTINCT from "normative" Judaism because (just a few obvious contradictions that come up):IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I never claimed that he said Karaism was "kosher". I have said that he said that Karaites were Jewish, and that Observant Orthodox Jews should marry Karaites in an attempt to assimilate Karaites into Rabbinic Judaism. I can provide the source if you'd like, in both Hebrew and English. --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- Y'know what some Jews say about Jews: "with three Jews, you get four opinions". An Orthodox rabbi noting that there are Jews who don't practice "Judaism" is nothing new. Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- - The reason I made mention of it is because Izak attempted to make it look like Karaites are not Jews. Instead of trying to argue it, I simply reffered to one of his authorities. --Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(1)It seeks to renounce Orthodox rabbis at the same time that it wants their legitimization of itself. If they reject the rabbis so why now do they accept them? So which is it?

As you had implied that Karaites are not Jews, I simply reffered to one of your Authorities as anything else would not be considered valid by yourself.--Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- They want to make peace with the Orthodoxim, but as a separate entity with their own rules. They want to cut down on the backbiting. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(2)Karaism rejects Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism by claiming to be "closer" to Orthodox Judaism at the same time that it rejects the views of Orthodox Judaism. So which is it?

We are closer to Orthodox Judaism in the fact that we accept all the Mitzvot as binding.--Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither. Karaism is its own movement, with its own ideas on how to be properly religious. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(3)Some modern adherents declare that Karaism "rejects" the status of the Talmud (as held by the Orthodox) and therefore makes it sound that it is similar in some ways to Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism who also view the Talmud differently to the Orthodox, yet at the same time claiming that Karaism accepts the written Torah which the Reform and Conservative DO NOT view as God-given. So which is it?

We have always rejected the Talmud as binding. Reform Judaism rejects the existence of God entirely --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Reform Judaism holds that the Torah was written by folks, but inspired by God. It does NOT reject the existence of God!!! If you want proof of this, go look into our prayerbook, Gates of Prayer. I am not sure if the Conservatives hold this view, or the Reconstructionists, for that matter.Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

- - My apologies - I really worded that wrong. Most of the Reform Jews I've known didn't believe in God, and I was mixing the two. Sorry 'bout that.--Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(4)Karaism has a record of claiming to be similar to an Islam (which is based on the Koran) yet claims that it also is "ONLY" based on the "LITERAL" Jewish Bible which forbids association with other religions (as stated in the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord your God...you shall not have any other Gods before me..."). So which is it?

Considering that when the Temple was standing the Pharisees and every other sect of Judaism also went by the observation of the New Moon, as is called for in the Torah, your attack is baseless. The difference in the Hillel II calender is that it is based on predictions of when the New Moon will be, rather than the actual observation.--Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all Bible-adhering monotheists consider the Muslims' God to be different from the God of the Jews. Some would say upfront that Allah is the same divinity as HaShem, or God. From that point of view, similarity to Islam need not be written off as "associations with other religions". Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(5)Some Karaites renounce Anan ben David as being "not a true Karaite" yet he is still praised for his wisdom, "shrewdness", and contributions. So which is it? (6)In retrospect, some Karaites show deep respect and admire the achievements of Anan ben David yet at other times they paint Anan ben David's followers as "Ananites" as if they are "ashamed" of things he did, because if they were proud of him they would not feel the need to label his followers "Ananites" and not "Karaites". So which is it?

He wasn't a Karaite at all. We respect him only in the same manner you might respect Martin Luther King Jr. --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- One can be a good guy without being a member of your group. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps they have their own ideas of what groups should be named. What can I say? Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(7)RABBI Saadia Gaon can objectively be considered to be greater than the secularly-appointed Orthodox "Chief Rabbis" of modern secularly-run Israel. He was the rabban shel kol b'nei hagolah (Rabbi of all the members of the diasporah) a rabbinic and Talmudic leader and scholar par excellence, his writings are still studied, applied and known to this day. He lived during the age of Anan and the initial confrontations between the Karaites and the remaining Jews, and in his writings he states that the Karaites are "not Jews" (see above quote and linkThe Karaites: Challengers of Rabbinic Authority: ). This is a well-known position, and the Israeli Chief rabbinate cannot change that. It is, perhaps, much like the issue of welcoming back the Ethiopian Falashas back into the fold of Judaism in Israel today, as the intention is to "bring back" any "lost Jews". Do Karaites today really think that the Orthodox rabbis of today have "renounced" the views of RABBI Saadia Gaon one of their greatest rabbis whom they revere for his scholarship? What about Karaites who vehemently insist that "they are NOT Jews" (see above quotes and links) are they to be believed or not? So which is it? IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

THat is not correct. Anan was dead before Saadia was born.
- Some Karaites feel they're Jewish, and others feel they aren't. Likewise, many Orthodoxim feel that the Karaites aren't, but some might feel they are. Definitions of people as Jewish or not, de facto if not de jure, are in the eyes of the beholder. From this vantage point, the Orthodox opinions are understandable, seeing as they consider Saadia Gaon's opinions worth thinking about; likewise, the Karaites' own opinions are also understandable, seeing as they don't follow Rabbi Saadia Gaon. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Izak, If you'd like I can post the full information about the Karaites who don't say they are Jewish. It's about 4 pages long though.--Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of common assumptions, is there really more than one Jewish religion?

Conventional wisdome has it that there is only one Jewish religion, and that conventional wisdom is accepted throughout the Jewish world. However, what if Karaism is Jewish, yet is distinct enough to be a religion in its own right? That would put Judaism up there with Christianity as being alleged groups of religions (such as Catholicism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, and so forth).

On the other hand, we Reform Jews do not necessarily follow all Rabbinical laws, but we follow those that make sense to us, after careful study. If the practices of Karaitism/ Karaite Judaism are essentially Jewish, then their lack of allegiance to Rabbinical laws shouldn't take away from Karaites being essentially Jewish. Rickyrab 20:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky: What about those Karaites who INSIST that they are NOT "Jews" at all, but "Karaites"? How would you deal with that (them)? (Obviously, "Yoshiah" does not fit into this group, as he claims to be a "Jewish Karaite".) This is all part of the confusion surrounding the question of how Judaism views Karaism. IZAK 07:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If one would say that Karaites and Karaism are not Jewish, they must by the same logic also classify Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, Secular Jews, the Falashas, etc. as non-Jewish, despite the fact that 85% of Jews are non-Orthodox.

Folks:In this regard see the discussions in the article on Jew and Judaism for a summary of the various groups' defintions of "Who is a Jew?" and "What is Judaism?". The problem with the Karaites is that since there are KNOWN Karaite groups who INSIST that they are NOT Jewish, which throws doubt on other Karaite's claims that they are "Jewish". Who do you believe? After all, if a Reform rabbi would wake up one morning and say he was "not Jewish" any more, but had chosen a gentile "prophet of god", such as Buddha, and would not mind to see his congregants become "Jewish Buddhists" yet still able to observe the Torah since they like it, but as a requirement for membership they must ALWAYS rant against the "big bad Talmud", and 100 years later there is still a cult of his "Jewish Buddhists" around, neither that rabbi nor his subsequebt devotees could be classed as "Jewish" in the traditional historical sense of the word according to ANY stream of Judaism, be it Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or secular. It would be called a schism at "best" or a new religion at "worst". IZAK 07:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There never was "one" Karaite group in history

See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm

THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME.

"...As their doctrines, however, were not fixed, and as almost every age the Karaites were split into diverse sects, therefore they could not resist or make headway against the Talmud, whose strength is, to those who rightly understand it, that it has never purposed to make fixed rules, to last for all ages; deliberation and reasoning concerning the Halakhas according to the circumstances, is the principle of the Talmud; and the saying of the Talmud, "even when they say to you of right that it is left, and of left that it is right, thou shalt not swerve from the commandment," shows the opinion of the Talmud, that the practice of the ceremonies and precepts is dependent on the time, place and other circumstances. With this power the Talmud combatted all its enemies, and was victorious."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"The controversies between the Jews and the Karaites are recorded in many books, Karaite and Talmudistic, from the age of R. Saadia the Gaon, and his opponent Sahal ben Matzliah to the present time. In them can also be found the history of their alternate triumphs. But this is not our task here: we will remark only that from the days of R. Saadiah the Gaon, when the Rabbis had begun to have polemics with them, can be seen the deep mark the Karaite literature left on the Rabbinical one. Philosophy was from that time used in conjunction with the Torah; many Gaonim followed R. Saadiah's method of harmonizing the Torah and the philosophy of that time, that they should seem as mutual enemies. So the Karaites charged such men with infidelity, but others were themselves compelled to imitate them, and called in the aid of philosophy, of the divinity, to interpret the texts of the Holy Scriptures."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"The effect of the Karaites on the Talmudist Rabbis is made evident also in this: that since their time the rabbis also began to write down fixed Halakhas taken from the Talmud, that the readers should not otherwise by error adopt the Karaite rules, made by the Karaite leaders, which they might mistake for the rules of the Talmud itself, since they could not know the whole Talmud by heart. They composed, therefore, the "Halakhoth G'doloth" (Great Halakhas), "Sh'iltoth'derab A'bai" (Queries of R. Ahai), for the sake of the students, who could not themselves wade through the whole Talmud. But thereby they opposed the spirit and object of the Talmud itself, that the Halakhas should be matter for discussion, and modified in accordance with the requirements of the time and place. As soon as the Gaonim had permitted to propound decisions of the Halakhas, and to fix them, those Gaonim, who succeeded them, were compelled to teach that these decisions of the former Gaonim, even though given without proofs, are holy for the people, as if giver, from Mount Sinai. This circumstance added fuel to the quarrel of the Karaites, and gave them new points of attack. The hope of some great men of the nation to reconcile the Jews with the Karaites became naught, for although the Karaites quarrelled among themselves, and split into rival sects, yet they all equally hated the Talmud, reviled it, and insulted it, styling the two colleges, at Sura and Pumbeditha, "the two harlots" spoken of in Ezekiel, who (claimed they) referred to these colleges in his prophecy." IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"'According to Makrizi there were among the Karaites ten sects, differing from each other in their opinions, practice and festivals; they had no permanence, some rose, some fell, and in the tenth century only five large sects were found, named:'

1. Jod'anim or Jodganim.

2. Makrites or Magrites.

3. Akhbarites.

4. Abn Amronites or Tiflisites.

5. Balbekites.

The reader will find in the books of Jost, Grätz, Fürst, Geiger, and in Hebrew, in "Bequoreth L'toldoth Hakaraim" an account of the particulars about which the various sects of the Karaites differed, and also the names of their leaders. IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
"We do not think it necessary to give these details in this place. We will mention for illustration the latest sect, which wished to fix the day of Atonement only on a Saturday every year, because it is said "Sabbath Sabbathan," which means a Sabbath of rest (Lev. xxiii. 32), and they translate "a Sabbath of Sabbaths," and the first day of Passover on Thursday.
Thus each Karaite sect celebrated the Biblical festivals on different days, for each sect construed the texts in the Pentateuch by preference without being able to come to an agreement.
Thus also in respect of the observation of Sabbath: for some Karaites, their houses were during the Sabbath their prisons, where they did sit in darkness, and which they could not leave when their neighbors happened not to be Karaites like themselves.

"In this we see the power of the Talmud, that even those who were inimical to it or hostile to a large portion of it, Halakhas never had different opinions concerning the festivals and other such things, important to one particular nation; for they could not deny its general tradition..."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]