![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I have read the page and I am surprised that the article still exists! It contains wrong and misleading records of "history" and the page is full of "muslim hate" propagnda!". I ask wikipedia to delete this article before further people are mislead! History was written by the "western minds" who envied and hated what Islam brought to this world. Therefore, it is not good enough to repeat the insaity again and again. The person who wrote this article is either too naiive or just delibrately trying to project history and Islam "negatively". For a brief and accurate "history and relationg of Jews and Muslims" read this webpage Attitudes and relations of Jews towards early Muslims[[ Queen of Sheba 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)] 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why Islam should be centered out for any modern developments of anti-Semitism. It is islamophobic to imply that an entire religion can be anti-semitic because certain fundamentalists have made anti-semitic comments. If that were legitimate, Mel Gibson just made Australia an anti-semitic country. Even the declared agenda of not thinking Israel should exist does not mean they hate Jews, just that they deny Israel is a legitimate country. The title of the article is biased in and of itself. Quite frankly, the word "anti-semitic" has become such propaganda it's hardly more than an epithet.
Karen Armstrong's A History of God and "The Battle for God" negate just about everything written here. A little tidbit to show I'm not making it up:
Nobody in the new empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith; indeed, for a century after Muhammad's death, conversion was not encouraged and, in about 700, was actually forbidden by law: Muslims believed that Islam was for the Arabs as Judaism was for the sons of Jacob. As the "people of the book" (ahl al-kitab), Jews and Christians were granted religious liberty as dhimmis, protected minority groups.
A History of God, Karen Armstrong, p. 159
and in 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, the Catholic monarchs, conquered Granada. The crusades against Islam in the Middle East had failed, but at least the Muslims had been flushed out of Europe. Europe became Muslim-free in 1499. Ferdinand and Isabella then signed the Edict of Expulsion, designed to rid Spain of its Jews. Many Jews were so attached to "al-Andalus" (as the old Muslim kingdom had been called) that they converted to Christianity, but about 80,000 Jews crossed the border into Portugal, while 50, 000 fled to the new Muslim Ottoman empire, where they were given a warm welcome.
precis A Battle for God, The History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong, p. 3 A nomaly 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
HAMADEHA: I agree!!! This is the most biased garbage i have ever read on wikipedia!!! I am so offended by this that i am thinking of starting my own page. First of all, the quran states that Judaism is not an enemy but a friend. They are reffered to as the people of the book, which is a generous an warm praise. There is no shift in tone in the quran because mohammed was rejected by the jews!!! That is the stupidest thing i have ever read. Whoever wrote this article has never even opened a quran. Someone needs to remove this bias...
This whole article is very poorly written. Ask yourself this; does it contain sufficient levels of balance, research, and expertise to warrant publication in print? The answer is an emphatic no. Even if it were submitted as an essay or paper for a student class, I suspect it would be marked poorly. Why? Because this is a complex subject served up in a simplistic manner (note: I said simplistic, not simplified), but it's also obvious that the writer of the piece has a definite viewpoint that he or she is determined to pursue.
The choice of quotes in the article are devoid of any wider context and are thus quite meaningless (they also serve to amplify the obvious bias of the writer). Imagine if I were to write an article about Israeli views of Palestinian's and I collected the most inflammatory comments I could find from Israeli's and then published them, thus giving a false impression that they were representative of Israeli's as a whole.
Once again, Wikipedia proves that far from being an authoritative source of information for the internet community, it is in fact a holding place for any misinformed, uninformed and just plain biased views. [A.M.H.]
not wanting to follow 5:32? wether it be to subjugate non-followers or kill them (transcript of modern clerical speech/incitation for revolt) it IS written in the koran, you cannot deny it. as a devout follower of christian faith i have no problem following my book to the letter, why cant you follow yours? is it because you can see that your book wants you to do bad things to others, that it derives its principles upon those written before? Muhammhed took pages from the torah and lessons he liked to suit his needs. the stories are shorter that you may draw your own conclusions. now whose book is corrupt?
That thing at the end about "Hug a jew" was probably a reference to this article on the MWU site which I linked to.
Read semitic. Then you'll understand that it is stupid to say Islam can be anti-semitic: Arabic people are a semitic people!
AAAAAAAARG!!! Fix it please!
This article is highly biased against Islam. It doesn't provide any evidence other than references to obscure authors (that might or might have not existed), and biased interpretations of selected verses of the Koran, the Holy Book.
I would like to remind people that the only serious references that should be used in a serious article should be the ones that are accepted by the majority of muslim scholars (a good starting point is the Al-Azhar University in Cairo). Let me just add this point to illustrate my point. It would not be serious to have a non-Jew commenting on the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a serious encyclopedia, because it is a subject in which Jews are the first concerned, and they can easily provide clear arguments of why such a document should not be taken seriously. At the same time, regarding Islam, I would suggest to let muslim scholars deal with the subject. Thank you.
Response to RK: My general impression is that most people who talk about Islam have no idea what they are talking about. They just put together sparse information they gather about the supposed anti-semitism of hand-picked islamic writings. My point is the following: at least muslim scholars know what they are talking about. My second point is the following: you would never find a non-Jew commenting on jewish writings, because they would definitely be considered anti-semitic. I think I have said enough on this subject. Thank you for your attention.
This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this? Martin
Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians. RK
"O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers (non-Muslims) who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Koran 9:123)
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Koran 5:51)
"O ye who believe! Take not for friends Unbelievers (non-Muslims) rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (Koran 4:144)
"Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers (non-Muslims). Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide." (Koran 5:80)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)
Martin writes "This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this?"
See the link below. It will answer your question. The short answer is this: Early verses in the Quran promote tolerance, later verses promote intolerance and hatred.
“Verily ye [unbelievers],19 and the [false] gods that ye worship besides Allah, are [but] fuel for hell! To it will ye [surely] come!”20
I find it quite quixotic to be defending Islam on the talk page of "Islam and anti-semitism", but here's my shot.
First of all, you (RK) quoted the Noble Qur'an very disingenuously. You have not given who's translation that is. To simply pluck random verses from the Noble Qur'an without the context is ridiculous. The Noble Qur'an is not for the uneducated; only those with knowledge will understand it (see 3:7 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html). Now, let us examine the verses you quoted in context, one by one:
009.120
YUSUFALI: It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighbourhood, to refuse to follow Allah's Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his: because nothing could they suffer or do, but was reckoned to their credit as a deed of righteousness,- whether they suffered thirst, or fatigue, or hunger, in the cause of Allah, or trod paths to raise the ire of the Unbelievers, or received any injury whatever from an enemy: for Allah suffereth not the reward to be lost of those who do good;-
PICKTHAL: It is not for the townsfolk of Al-Madinah and for those around them of the wandering Arabs so stay behind the messenger of Allah and prefer their lives to his life. That is because neither thirst nor toil nor hunger afflicteth them in the way of Allah, nor step they any step that angereth the disbelievers, nor gain they from the enemy a gain, but a good deed is recorded for them therefor. Lo! Allah loseth not the wages of the good.
SHAKIR: It did not beseem the people of Medina and those round about them of the dwellers of the desert to remain behind the Messenger of Allah, nor should they desire (anything) for themselves in preference to him; this is because there afflicts them not thirst or fatigue or hunger in Allah's way, nor do they tread a path which enrages the unbelievers, nor do they attain from the enemy what they attain, but a good work is written down to them on account of it; surely Allah does not waste the reward of the doers of good;
009.121
YUSUFALI: Nor could they spend anything (for the cause) - small or great- nor cut across a valley, but the deed is inscribed to their credit: that Allah may requite their deed with the best (possible reward).
PICKTHAL: Nor spend they any spending, small or great, nor do they cross a valley, but it is recorded for them, that Allah may repay them the best of what they used to do.
SHAKIR: Nor do they spend anything that may be spent, small or great, nor do they traverse a valley, but it is written down to their credit, that Allah may reward them with the best of what they have done.
009.122
YUSUFALI: Nor should the Believers all go forth together: if a contingent from every expedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them,- that thus they (may learn) to guard themselves (against evil).
PICKTHAL: And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.
SHAKIR: And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?
009.123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
So, as apparent from the previous verses, this passage is dealing with times of war. It is only saying that, in times of war, fight the nearest enemies first. And "unbeliever" does not mean "non-Muslim" in this verse. It in fact means "enemy of Islam", or "anti-Muslim".
I noticed that you attempted to give a defintion to "unbeliever", when in fact the word is vague and refers to different people in each verse it is mentioned. To conclude that all non-Muslims are unbelievers is oversimplification as well as misdirection. By the way, your link, " http://www.christianislamicforum.org/jihad_in_islamic_theology.htm", doesn't work.
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
005.069
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.
If you would like to give your own definition to the word, go ahead. But don't expect knowledgable Muslims to agree with it.
NEXT
005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Notice how it says "the Jews and the Christians"? This verse is referring to Jews and Christians as a whole. It says nothing about individual Jews or individual Christians. And this is practical advice as well.
NEXT
004.137
YUSUFALI: Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way.
SHAKIR: Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.
004.138
YUSUFALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;-
PICKTHAL: Bear unto the hypocrites the tidings that for them there is a painful doom;
SHAKIR: Announce to the hypocrites that they shall have a painful chastisement:
004.139
YUSUFALI: Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
PICKTHAL: Those who chose disbelievers for their friends instead of believers! Do they look for power at their hands? Lo! all power appertaineth to Allah.
SHAKIR: Those who take the unbelievers for guardians rather than believers. Do they seek honor from them? Then surely all honor is for Allah.
004.140
YUSUFALI: Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-
PICKTHAL: He hath already revealed unto you in the Scripture that, when ye hear the revelations of Allah rejected and derided, (ye) sit not with them (who disbelieve and mock) until they engage in some other conversation. Lo! in that case (if ye stayed) ye would be like unto them. Lo! Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell;
SHAKIR: And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell.
004.141
YUSUFALI: (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?"- but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" but Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.
PICKTHAL: Those who wait upon occasion in regard to you and, if a victory cometh unto you from Allah, say: Are we not with you? and if the disbelievers meet with a success say: Had we not the mastery of you, and did we not protect you from the believers? - Allah will judge between you at the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of success) against the believers.
SHAKIR: Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And i. there IS a chance for the unbelievers, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers? So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.
004.142
YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance;
PICKTHAL: Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little;
SHAKIR: Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and He shall requite their deceit to them, and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little.
004.143
YUSUFALI: (They are) distracted in mind even in the midst of it,- being (sincerely) for neither one group nor for another whom Allah leaves straying,- never wilt thou find for him the way.
PICKTHAL: Swaying between this (and that), (belonging) neither to these nor to those. He whom Allah causeth to go astray, thou (O Muhammad) wilt not find a way for him:
SHAKIR: Wavering between that (and this), (belonging) neither to these nor to those; and whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall not find a way for him.
004.144
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?
004.145
YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-
PICKTHAL: Lo! the hypocrites (will be) in the lowest deep of the Fire, and thou wilt find no helper for them;
SHAKIR: Surely the hypocrites are in the lowest stage of the fire and you shall not find a helper for them.
004.146
YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent, mend (their lives) hold fast to Allah, and purify their religion as in Allah's sight: if so they will be (numbered) with the believers. And soon will Allah grant to the believers a reward of immense value.
PICKTHAL: Save those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and make their religion pure for Allah (only). Those are with the believers. And Allah will bestow on the believers an immense reward.
SHAKIR: Except those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and are sincere in their religion to Allah, these are with the believers, and Allah will grant the believers a mighty reward.
004.147
YUSUFALI: What can Allah gain by your punishment, if ye are grateful and ye believe? Nay, it is Allah that recogniseth (all good), and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: What concern hath Allah for your punishment if ye are thankful (for His mercies) and believe (in Him)? Allah was ever Responsive, Aware.
SHAKIR: Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? And Allah is the Multiplier of rewards, Knowing.
Clearly, these verses is dealing with hypocrites. When this verse is looked upon, in context, the reasoning behind this advice is evident. Those who befriend Jews and Christians instead of Muslims are hypocrites. And, as explained in 4:145, hypocrites are among the worst people in Islam. "Islamic" terrorists are hypocrites, they are not following Islam as you so dilligently claim.
NEXT
005.077
YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of folk who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from a plain road.
SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.
005.078
YUSUFALI: Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
PICKTHAL: Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress.
SHAKIR: Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
005.079
YUSUFALI: Nor did they (usually) forbid one another the iniquities which they committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.
PICKTHAL: They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily evil was that they used to do!
SHAKIR: They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.
005.080
YUSUFALI: Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
PICKTHAL: Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.
SHAKIR: You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.
005.081
YUSUFALI: If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what hath been revealed to him, never would they have taken them for friends and protectors, but most of them are rebellious wrong-doers.
PICKTHAL: If they believed in Allah and the Prophet and that which is revealed unto him, they would not choose them for their friends. But many of them are of evil conduct.
SHAKIR: And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.
005.082
YUSUFALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
PICKTHAL: Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.
SHAKIR: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
005.083
YUSUFALI: And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.
PICKTHAL: When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messengers, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses.
SHAKIR: And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).
I am very tempted to say QED on this one, but I don't want to risk misunderstanding. The verses, once again, are clearly dealing with hypocrites and people who change God's Law for the purposes of sinning. These people befriend Jews and Christians for the purposes of sinning. That's why it is wrong.
NEXT
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
The entire Sura deals with war. Within context, this can clearly be seen as telling Muslims to fight during a war. I highly recommend reading Sura 9 in its entirety before referring to its individual verses.
To claim that "Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians..." is laughable. There is nothing to hide, there is no shame in these verses. You act as if Muslims keep these in secret or something. It's right there in the Noble Qur'an, there's nothing to hide. Do you really think I am that stupid?
Back to the point: Have some "Muslims" used these verses as justification for anti-semitism? Of course. But that's just ignorance, as I have clearly shown.
And now I'm expecting you to respond. Kirbytime 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
taken from the article:
After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed, he said that "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures." (XCVIII: The Proof: 6-7)
---
I was actually rather impressed with this article. Historically, under Muslim rule there has been very little anti-Semitism (with a few exceptions). The religion of Islam itself has barriers against anti-Semitism, just as Judaism has barriers against maltreatment of the sons of Ishmael. The current mess in the Middle East is not a religious issue, in my opinion, and I think that the article did a fairly good job of expressing this.
-- 66.92.69.84
---
taken from the article:
Around 700 CE, Jews were forcibly converted to Islam during the Arab conquest of North Africa. Around 970 CE Jews in Barcelona, Spain were massacred by local Muslims. All of their property was confiscated. Around 1000 CE Muslim pogroms in Egypt killed many Jews. Near this same time, during the Islamic Almohade control of Spain, many Jews were killed by Muslims. Many Jews were forced to convert to Islam. Others fled the country. In 1050 CE the Islamic community in Morocco began a series of pogroms against Jews that killed several thousand in the Jewish community.
This is wrong, especially in regard to the people of the book. They had the choice to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule or to emigrate. I did some research and I found exactly one mention of an attempt of forcible conversion: of an Christian Arab tribe who then emigrated into Byzantine territory. Some reading for al-Andalus and Egypt: [1] [2] (BTW a fascinating source of information) -- Elian
taken from the article:
Many believe that Muhammad's name existed in all other "Holy Books", however as part of their mischief the "Banu Israel" tribe destroyed their existence. However muslims are obligated to respect those who believe in the same God.
taken from the article:
Al-Tabari, a 10th century Islamic commentator on the Koran, gives an interpretation of verses 5:112-115. He holds that apostles were punished by Allah by turning them into apes and pigs. Many Muslims hold that Allah still will use this form of punishment for Muslims who commit sins; this punishment is specifically linked to the idea that all Jews are sinners. The idea is that by threatening a non-observant Muslim with the punishment once given to Jews, a Muslim will stop erring. (Uri Rubin, "Apes, Pigs, and the Islamic Identity," Israel Oriental Studies XVII (1997), pp. 93-102.)
moved from Talk:Islam and alleged anti-Semitism
For a balanced article, the claims of anti-Semitism should be balanced by a rebuttal by those who deny such claims. -- Uncle Ed 15:30 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
This sentence would be better if it named a specific individual or group of note who considered this verse to be anti-Semitic. Martin
I'm not particularly doubting its accuracy - I'd just like to see it changed to something like In 1985, the Universal Council of Rabbis, which represents 85% of Jewish synagogues, condemned this teaching as "grossly anti-Semitic".
On a similar note, the claim that the verse shows that Abraham was a Muslim and not a Jew also needs to be attributed to some prominent Islamic scholar/group/etc. Martin
I'd just like to add that calling Abraham a Jew is almost as anachronistic as calling Adam or Noah a Jew. Abraham's sons included both the supposed ancestor of all Jews and the supposed ancestor of all Arabs; if he was any ethnicity, my guess would be Chaldean... - Mustafaa 09:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This really is ridiculous in the arabic language the term semitic is used to describe the Arab race. How on earth can islam be anti semitic?!?!? The correct term really is Miso-Judaic [3]. But even so the Ihud mentioned in islamic litrerature were a Judiac cult which worshipped Ezra as the son of God and this cult does not exist anymore. The Quran says nothing bad about Eldhyn Hudwe which means "The Hebrews" as refering to the modern Jews.
Hey, if anyone gets the chance to check the paper references in here, they should be checked. I've found enough errors already to seriously undermine confidence in this article. - Mustafaa 09:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
not wanting to follow 5:32? wether it be to subjugate non-followers or kill them (transcript of modern clerical speech/incitation for revolt) it is written in the koran, you cannot deny it. as a devout follower of christian faith i have no problem following my book to the letter, why cant you follow yours? is it because you can see that your book derives its principles upon those written before? Muhammhed took pages from the torah and lessons he liked to suit his needs. the stories are shorter that you may draw your own conclusions. now whose book is corrupt?
Islam is similar to Judaism, in that both see themselves as both spiritual descendants of Abraham and followers of the same prophets. Islamic scholars are quick to point out that Islam encourages toleration and respect for Jews, as well as Christians, as both are considered " People of the Book", meaning they share common scriptures and prophets. Many people have produced hadith concerning Muhammad that showed how he did business with the Jewish tribes of his city and how he ordered Muslims to share food with their Jewish neighbors.
Historically there has not been as much anti-Semitism in Muslim lands as in Christian lands, up until the Twentieth century. While many Jews were persecuted in Europe, they enjoyed relative political and religious freedom in Islamic societies. After helping the Muslims conquer Spain, they helped the Muslims govern the country throughout the Middle Ages (and parts remained under Muslim control until the completion of the Reconquista in 1492); during that time, Jewish citizens had rights nearly equal to those of American citizens today. Jewish historians refer to that time period as "The Golden Age of Judaism", which ended in 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella gave them May, June, and July to leave Spain permanently. The Catholic Monarchs declaired this to be due to their effect on the religious faith of the Marranos and Jews who had converted to Christianity.
Jews, and their Rabbis, gained prominence in the courts of Baghdad, Cairo, and Istanbul, performing the duties of palace physicians, finance officers, and even government ministers known as "viziers.' As a minority, Jews exempt from Islamic law ( Sharia), and the governments allowed them a degree of self-rule by appointing Jewish leaders to implement Jewish law for their communities. Important synagogues dot the major cities of the Middle East, and relations between Muslims and Jews have been relatively calm for over a thousand years.
Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased greatly in the twentieth century. This can be traced to various sources; some of it can be traced to long-held prejudices and historical misunderstandings. The main reason for the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East in the past fifty years may be due to the poor state of relations between Israel, a Jewish-majority state, and the isolation enforced by the neighboring Arab countries. Criticism of Israeli policy has resulted in a marked rise in distrust of Jews and anti-Semitism at the popular level. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 05:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe that your affiliation with Rabbis and whatnot is clouding your perspective on this issue. There is much speculation as to the persecution of Jews in North Africa during the period mentioned (read above complaints), especially considering its contradiction with the concurrent Moorish state in pre-Inquisition Spain. Also, I don't find it prudent to create an article claiming to represent Muslim clerics' view of miso-Judaism citing mutliple quotes from one cleric and one from another. In addition to that, the conflict occuring over occupation in Palestine is downplayed and made to seem like a poor excuse for any hard feelings/rebellion. If you wish for this to be anything more than grey propaganda, then you must cite multiple POVs on this issue, not just your own POV stated as fact.-- Mymunkee 07:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is it Islam and anti-semitism or muslims and anti-semitism? The actions of un-islamic rulers or kings should not form a part of an article about Islam and anti-semitism, that is misleading, if the actions of a "clinically insane egyptian ruler" are representative of anti-semitism in islam then the massacre of praying muslims by a jew in Hebron are representative of anti-arab muslim sentiments in judaism.
RK, I'm afraid you may have missed my point, what I meant was that the actions of a a muslim should not reflect on Islam, for example, the actions of Hitler do not reflect on christianity, the actions of the Irgun or the Stern Gang do not reflect on Judaism etc. Therefore, the actions of an Egyptian ruler, or any arab or muslim ruler should not reflect at all on the religion of Islam, you judge a religion by it's scripture not it's people, this article is about Islam and not muslims, if you want to write about muslims then create an article about anti-semitism and muslims. -- Omar 12:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is not a historical anachronism at all - unless, of course, you accept the equally unprovable secularist claim that Abraham was probably polytheist, or did not exist. In the Quran, "Muslim" is not used in its present-day sense, as an all-purpose term for Muslims as opposed to other religions (the closest equivalent of that in the Quran is "mu'min", believer); rather, it retains its original meaning of "submitter". If there's one thing Muslims, Christians, and Jews can agree on, it's that Abraham submitted to God's will; that's about the least you can say of anyone willing to sacrifice his son at God's command. - Mustafaa 08:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't really see that. As I read it, "argue that..." removes the need for "allegedly", and so does "consider" in the first half of the former sentence, whereas "in that" implies factuality. It's not a matter of style so much as of syntax. - Mustafaa 00:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While Abraham is the founder of monotheism, he is not also the founder of the form of Judaism, Christianity and Islam practiced today, and not even the Judaism practiced and taught by Moses who came after Abraham. All three (often referred to as Abrahamic religions) developed their unique rituals over time while continuing to remain monotheistic, each in their own way. Therefore Abraham was a Muslim only in the sense of the word explained above (i.e. submitter).
Qur'an verses should not be viewed as "usurping the patriarch of Judaism to promote another religion" because they essentially promote monotheism more than anything else. However, becuase Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion because follower's faith is not related to his or her descent, it may challenge the descent part while it does not challenge the monotheism which is also part of Judaism. Bardylis 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I agree that both views should be included with equal consideration. Bardylis 13:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two articles here on Arab_Anti-Semitism and Islam and anti-Semitism. Both very negative. Are there any article here on Israeli racism against Arabs and Judaism negative views on Gentiles? Why not? That's not uncommon either, and I can easily write articles on that topic. Israel Shahak actually wrote a book on it, didn't he?
Some Islamists claim Kemal Atatürk was a secret Jew. Do Muslim anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Caliphate-destroyers" in the same way that Christian anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Christ killers"? GCarty 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does it make a difference, I agree that jews have been treated horribly by christians throught the middle ages to now. this does not mean that moslems are free of blame. I beleive that the jews of medina were the first of the jews killed by moslems themselves being killed by mohammad, and the jews were killed through out the reign of the moslems. The jews were persecuted and killed in pretty much all the moslem and arab countries.
The text now reads "After Muhammad's efforts to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed[citation needed]..."
I'm quite curious as to what may be used as evidence to substantiate this claim. 71.141.168.28 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The link to substantiate this claim is : ( http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/had.html#a23464).
Firstly, these "hadiths" fail to mention the context. (many of them say "the rest is irrelevent"). Secondly, the author doens't identify him/herself, or give reference to an authentic source. ALso, the associcated article [10] seems to be unscholarly. And ofcourse, the site answering-islam.org.uk is quite POV. BEtter sources need to be found. Bless sins 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) And also the author clearly states that "All of the Hadeeths are translated by me personally, and I am not an expert in translation. ". Bless sins 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, pls. provide the Haddad quote (about the quranic verse) verbatim here. Thanks. Bless sins 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) An while you're at it pls. tell me how Haddad is a scholarly source on Islamic history. Bless sins 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
These claims are by some Muslim scholars. There is no evidence that "Islam" (the religion) makes these claims. Bless sins 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
ALSO, can you explain the relevency of this: "Al-Jahiz (d. 869), a ninth century Muslim zoologist and belles-lettriste who authored ...". First of all Al-Jahiz is authoring a non-theolgy, and a rather medieval scientific (as it was back then) book. How does this relate to mainstream Muslims or Islam in general? Secondly, how did this book cause the "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews"? Bless sins 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
So I'm assuming (due to lack of response) that everybody agrees this section is irrelevent. Bless sins 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, pls get the citation for this as well, or it will be removed: "This verse (interpreted to mean that they were turned into apes) is sometimes used by hostile groups to mock the Jews, on the grounds that these must have been Jews, since the Sabbath is a commandment which (according to Islam) God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers[citation needed]. "04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your citations are insufficient. What I was looking for is this:
The first point is only slightly covered by the sources you provided. None of them explicitly connects this verse with the HAMAS or other organizations. The second point I have not found in any source. Can you find me a soure that says "Sabbath is a commandment which God demanded of only Jews ", and then connect it to hostile groups mocking Jews. Bless sins 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think my version is correct. Quran (7:163-166) says that God told a group of disobedient people living by the sea: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected". Earlier verses show that these people had broken the Sabbath.
Indeed, that is exactly what the quran describes. Check out the translation here ( [12]). IT says they broke their sabbath but also that they "disregarded the warnings that had been given them, " and that they "transgressed (all) prohibitions". The Quran makes it clear that these people were disobedient and breaking the Sabbath was just one of thier sins. Infact if you look at 163,164, 165, 166; only 163 talks about Sabbath. The rest talk about other disobedience. Bless sins 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, pls. explain the relevence of this paragraph:
"In the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) Jews were forced to wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and were also forced to affix said image to their homes. (For Christians, the image was of a pig.) "
Did the Aghlabid Dynasty claim that some Jews had been transformed? The fact they made Jews wear this may be oppressive, but certainly does not mean that they claimed such a thing (esp. as they made Chrisitans wear pig images, despite no mention of Christians bieng transformed into pigs in the Quran).
Bless sins
10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello SlimVirgin, the last comment here is by me. I don't see how any of my edits have been refuted. Just to make it clearer I'll explain myself. I have made the following changes:
When I ask for source, pls don't bombard me with 10 weblinks, none of which contain the actual info. All I ask for is one good source, and perhaps quote that source, so I now where to look in it. Bless sins 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have re-added my edits. Pls discuss this issue on the talk page before reverting. Bless sins 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the section yet again. I'd leave it alone at this point, Bless sins, because I've barely scratched the surface of the quotes that are available from these sources alone. This version is very mild. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
To Pecher: "The Quran states..." is better than "The Quran contains a number of verses describing Jews being transformed into apes and pigs...". This is becuase the quran itself is quoted, and we don't need to summarize what the quran says. The Quran speaks for itself. Also, as we see below the verse, shcolars disagree at what really happened, and therefore "Jews being transformed into apes and pigs" is not completetly true. Bless sins 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, your edits disrupt the format of the entire article. Pls. pay attention to what you are doing. Bless sins 12:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, the quran states what the quran states. IF you think that the verse of the quran that is quoted says "Jews were transformed into apes and pigs", then the reader will know by looking over the quoted verse. Your comment would be redundant at best. You have to agree that "The Quran states..." is far more NPOV and accurate (no doubt about that) than what you are trying to put. Bless sins 11:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody check this verse? I think there is something wrong with the reference 17:100-104
"
Pharaoh sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharaoh] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." (Qur'an [
Quran
17:100)
Thanks -- Aminz 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, this verse : "'You will find that the most brazen among mankind, with hatred towards the believers, are the Jews and the Idolaters.' (Quran [ Quran 81:5)"
81:5 says something different I think. -- Aminz 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I was shocked when I saw Maimonides description and assessment of the treatment of the Jews. As a Muslim, I would like to apologize for that. Were I in the shoes of Muslim rulers at that time, I would have been much more tolerant I believe. -- Aminz 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
p. 41 of Bernard Lewis' book The Jews of Islam has the line "The same perception is reflected in a common oath formula: "[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew...."
He does NOT say "Throughout the ages" and he does not limit the "oath formula" to Muslims.
If you want a quote on Islam and anti-Semitism, there are plenty in his book. This is not one of them. Javadane 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The article did not describe the quote as being limited to muslims, it just says that it is a commonly used phrase. Also you have violated the 3RR, please revert yourself to avoid a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the quote to make it more neutral. That should end the conflict here. Bless sins 04:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The context in Lewis' book definitely refers to a Muslim oath as the paragraph in full lists several Muslim quotes demonstrating the Muslim perception that dhimmis were of lower, humbler, inferior status. If you'd like I can type out the whole paragraph here to make it clear. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This section, needs some changes. {BY the title, I'm assuming this section is for examples of "persecution" of Jews by Muslims.)
Bless sins 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, does any one have any comments on this topic? (namely, how are a bunch of anti-Semitic statements by clerics examples of "persecution") Bless sins 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
“[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew.” How is this a common quote? I've never read this in any book written by secular scholars of Islamic history. If it's not a claim, then other authors will have verified this. But the burden is upon whoever added this quote to support it's veracity. Otherwise it cannot be stated as fact and to do so is prejudicial. SouthernComfort 14:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This quote should be removed because NO ONE has yet provided ANY source that states that this quote is an example of "persecution". Bless sins 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? It clearly shows an example of anti-semitism in the Islamic world, it is obviously relevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? Why is it then sooo difficult for someone to provide a source that says so? I don't dispute that its irrelevent to the article, only to the section. Saying that Muslims saying a few words is an an example of "Historic persecution" is absolutely ridiculous (unless otherwise shown by a reliable source). It should be moved to a more relevent section. Bless sins 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The following is OR: "As an example of referring to Jews dishonourably as an untrustworthy group...". Lewis never said this. This part of the quote should be removed. Bless sins 11:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher inappropriately removed the following under the jsutification of "removal of random website": "Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism Muslim organizations like the US based Muslim Wake Up! (MWU) have explicitly denounced anti-semitism. Harun Yahya, a modern Muslim writer, has also denounced anti-Semitism as a pagan, and therefore un-Islamic, ideology. [17] "
Firstly, it is not a "random" website, but an active organization. Secondly, the section containes the opinion of a prominent scholar ( Harun Yahya), who yeilds influence over many Muslims. Pls. don't remove entire sections without justification on Talk. Bless sins 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a response another one of your silly removals. You removed: This verse should not be used by any mean to negate the fact that among the Jews (and Christians) will be righteous people who can be good friends as explained in the above verses, they do not fight us in our religion or our homes. They can be our neighbors, colleagues, friends, co-workers...etc We will be good to them as they are good to us. But you did not remove the content above it, even though the content above it and below it is from the same source. Why?? Also, the source is NOT providing any facts, but it is only providing one person's perspective. Bless sins 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The section obviously does not belong to the article, as the article's title is "Islam and anti-Semitism". Therefore, let's stick to the subject in question. Pecher Talk 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the purposes of this article is to show the "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". That is what this section was showing. Bless sins 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think that view is lacking from wikipedia. Why don't you starty an article about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, someone suggested that. However, what I worry about is that editors might consider it to be a POV fork. What would be really helpful is if editors could give their opinion below as to whether creating a seperate article where we would accomodate the following:
It would be helpful if the users suggested their opinions below (whether a new article should be created, the section merged back into Islam and anti-Semitism, or the section be merged in some other article). Bless sins 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It is clear from the title that that would be irrelevant to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Other editors your comments would be appreciated:
Please stop removing the referenced information indicating that the verses refer to Jews, as this is against policy. Not only do the references show that the verses refer to Jews, but Muslim sources agree. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop re-inserting the various Qur'an verse referring to Jews as apes; this isn't an article about the Qur'an per se, but an article about accusations of anti-Semitism, and the links to the Qur'an are quite good enough. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
At the end of the day , this is where the argument stands.
Statement: "A number of verses in the Qur'an refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs".
Sources:
Disputed: This argument is disputed by statements from Islamic scholars and experts on theology (according to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb)
Statement: The Quran says ( [
Quran
7:164[
Quran
7:165[
Quran
7:166)
Sources:
Disputed: No serious scholar disputes this statement. Absolutely none. Please re-examine your position(s). Bless sins 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The article deals with "Islam and Anti-semetism". For material to not constitute original research here, it must be based on sources that speak of anti-semetism directly. Yes, it's true that Jews have suffered persecution under certain Muslim regimes, however their treatment was not particularly worse than that of other non-muslims minorities of their time. As such, while the regimes in question can (and should) be accused of "muslim supremacy", to label it 'anti-semetism' is incorrect. It's original research when the editor labels an act or statement 'anti-semetism' though his own judgement, and without reference to a third party, published and credible, source. Amibidhrohi 04:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to keep these tags in place. This entire article is quite obviously set to support one single POV. It's full of original research. Much of it is made up of these editor's own bigotries and opinions, without sources to back them up (at this point, the question of sources being credible is a latter concern). I'm not going to bother trying to teach you what Original Research or POV are, you already know. To assume good faith on your part would be naive at this point. This article is nothing but right-wing Jewish propaganda aimed at smearing Islam. Amibidhrohi 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell does Islam claims mean? - If there is a claim in the qur'an, cite it. If its from a hadith, cite it. If its from a Muslim, Cite it. "Islam" can not "claim" anything, it's texts or proponents can though.-- Irishpunktom\ talk 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is in need of sourcing. All quotes need sourcing, all claims need citations. At the moment there are far too few. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 17:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, this article has been advertised to the members of Wikipedia Muslim Guild as an article that needs attention. Pecher Talk 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
God knows how much solicitation is done outside of wikipedia. ANyways, is askign others to come look at article wrong? Is it against wikipedia policy? Bless sins 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have few questions about this article? Please do not take me wrongly and I do not intend to attack on any group. I do not understand that why this article exist in the first place. If you believe that Islam is a religion against Jew then it is wrong. If you think that many/few Muslims are against Jew then so what? There are Christians against Muslims, Jews against Muslims (so on...) but one should never label the whole community. The article will not give any advantage to Jews; in fact the article itself is insult of Jews. See For example let say someone abuse Islam or my Prophet (PBUH). If I write that abuse at my user page then I am making more people read that abuse. Hence I am myself more abusing my religion. Also if a Muslim (with no information about this subject) read this article then he will say. Okay if my religion is against Jew then I will be against Jew too. Hence this article is spreading hate. This article is not good for Muslim or Jew or for wikipedia. It is against inter-faith harmony and friendship. We should give good examples instead of spending our energies in finding bad example. We should spread love instead of hate. I will also appose strickly any article like Jew and anti-Islam --- Faisal 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has been protected due to this edit war that is happening. When the page is ready to be unprotected, let me know. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This section struck me as odd. It says "When Muslim armies conquered nations, people of the Book (a category including Jews) were theoretically not forced to convert to Islam"... so, when Communists armies conquered nations, capitalists (a categoriy including Jews)... my point is, to be anti-Semitic the motivation has to be that they are Jewish. This is by no means to say that many practicing Muslims didn't discriminate against Jews because of Jewishness (anti-Semitism) or that dhimma isn't a type of discrimination. However, hating a Jew because he is old is not anti-Semitism... it's ageism. Dhimmi was (in most places) the same law as extended to Christians and in some places to Zoroastrians and Hindus. It is a tricky subject and it should be addressed but it needs to be addressed carefully. On the subject of the constitution of Medina, nothing mentioned about it is anti-Semitic. Muhammad favored the Muslims? well, while it may mean he's not a universalist trying to gain more rights for your group is not anti-Semitism. That is tribal dnynamics... I do think it would be much easier to create a "Islam and anti-paganism" article because (I should read up on this) their motivations are in some case specifically because their adversaries are pagan. gren グレン 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956: on 'The Koran and Anti-Semitism'. Reza1 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Iran has published holocaust-denial cartoons, and Ahmadinezhad has denied the holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel. Regarding anti-Semitism in Pakistan:
In 1996 Pakistani officials continued to condemn the Middle East peace process and to declare that Pakistan would not establish relations with Israel until Israel fully implemented UN resolutions.
The media in Pakistan have provided extensive coverage of the political and personal career of the cricket star Imran Khan. Since Khan's marriage in 1996 to Jemima Goldsmith, daughter of a British industrialist and politician, Sir James Goldsmith, Khan was accused of acting as an agent of the "Jewish lobby." Jemima Khan publicly denied that her parents were Jewish. An Egyptian newpaper distributed in Pakistan accused Khan of receiving large sums of money for his election campaign from the "Jewish lobby." Following complaints from Khan, the deputy editor of the newspaper retracted the story and published an apology.
Since India established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, the Pakistani media have repeatedly referred to the “Zionist threat on our borders,” and occasionally combine both anti-Zionist and antisemitic rhetoric. This is particularly common in the Islamist press, but also occurs in mainstream publications.
Should this be entitled under a new section called "Institutional antisemitism (or antisemitism in the media) in the Muslim world" or what? Netaji 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2001/01/05/stories/040555ra.htm
The Markaz, an Ahle Hadith organisation of Wahabi orientation, was initially very close to Saudi Arabia, but seems to have developed differences with it because of its proximity to Osama and of its contention that even Saudi Arabia does not have an ideal Islamic society. Its criticism of the stationing of the US and other Western troops in Saudi Arabia also contributed to this. It describes the Hindus and Jews, in that order, as the main enemies of Islam and India and Israel as the main enemies of Pakistan. Its Amir, Prof Saeed, is a strong opponent of Western-style democracy.
Markaz is the political wing of Lashkar-e-Toiba Shiva's Trident 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Indian Jewish community has recently suffered from anti-Semitism from Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, who have declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies of Pakistan
Now where does it state that Indian Jewish community has come under attack from the LeT? Omerlives 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba have also expressed anti-Semitic views. Their propaganda arm has declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies ofPakistan.
inaccurate part: no where have they declared Indian jews to be enemies of Islam but their declaration was for Jewish folks in general.
Superflous part: the bits about hindus and india. This is about antisemitism, emanating from some quarters in the muslim world not hate about other non muslim groups in general. Read the Alqaeda part which too has had variosu declarations aganinst Jewish people as well as West and Christians. Again, the article is restricted to antisemitism. Omerlives 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to let people know that Arabs are Semites as well. They speak Arabic, which is a branch of Hebrew, which is a Semetic language. So when people say that Arabs are Anti-Semetic, it means that Arabs are self haters, which doesnt make sense. Arabs and Muslims do not hate the Jews, as they are told in the Quran to respect all religions. The Jews, as well as the Christians, are referred to as "The People of the Book," and Muslims share a close relationship to them. For exampe, Muslims are allowed to eat their meat.
Unfortunately, the view on Islam has become a negative one, where these "terrorists" use the name of Islam and God to justify what they are doing to innocent civilians. People need to be aware that Arabs and Muslims do not think that way at all. After all, who in the world doesnt want peace. NOte the above was left by Nalalami
Anti-Semitic means anti-Jew. It doesn't matter if their languages are considered part of the same family. As for saying that they don't hate Jews, that is quite frankly untrue. Anti-Semitism is everywhere, I mean everywhere in the Muslim world, and the Qu'Ran states very clearly, over and over, that Muslims should take over the world. This isn't biased. This is the truth. User:Unnoticed
For once, please do not jump and claim all ownership to the term 'Semitic', it is a historical fact that Arabs are semitic, [refer to A history of Saracens/Arabs]. The title of this article therefore is incorrect, in that it refutes itself. An Arab cannot be anti-semitic (by definition). Arab-Israel contentions are a different topic, entirely.
PS. It cannot be stressed enough, and is vigorously ignored, but while writing for a global audience, PLEASE leave your biases at home. It will serve none of us.
I happened to read on this site (wikipedia) that the negative form of the adjective semitic (i.e. anti-semitic) is almost always used as a misnomer to mean "anti-Jewish" specifically. Further discussion on the issue of the true meaning of "semitic" and "anti-semitic" would be really pointless. Nontheless, the way the adjective is commonly used unfortunately continues to exclude other semites and there seems to be no attempt to correct this so that the (possibly) percieved disregard for the importance of other (non-Jewish) semites is no longer implicit in the real meaning of the word. Please correct me if I am wrong.
By the way, quoting from wikipedia again, "The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile")." Bardylis 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I tottally agree with this artical, I am sorry if some of you are mad about that fact, but I think it is the truth
This is probably the most important Islamic quote regarding Jews that needs to be mentioned; “You will battle the Jews until one of them will hide behind a rock. (The rock) will say: ‘O ‘Abdullaah (Worshiping slave of Allaah)! Behind me hides a Jew come and slay him.’” [ [25]] This is from the Hadeeth Chaldean 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
More Agreement!
Far from exagerated, adding to the facts, there are many more instances of historic repression of Jews by Muslims in the way of expulsions and massacres. This discussion is being dominated by Muslims who wish to drown out any criticism of themselves - their religion, while piling up their own against their perceived enemies. The Atlas of Jewish History - find it - lists centuries of Arab and Islamic oppression against Jews throughout the Middle-East and North Africa. There were at least two events every century. Even Spain was not as wonderful a utopia as some modern apologists wish to make it seem. If anything, Muslims were quicker to profit from collaboration with Jews, until some small event or even rumor would set off a killing frenzy that always seemed to finish with the Jewish population, what remained of it, being driven away, while their property and wealth was confiscated. At least in Europe, policy was made clear, but some region(s) of Europe were always safe enough for Jews to survive. In Europe, despite the repetitions of persecution, the Ashkenazi Jews contributed greatly to many communities and survived to be the largest of all world Jewish populations. And remember that in the late 19th century, even the German Kaiser remarked upon his visit, how wasted the region of Palestine was by the Muslim Arabs and Ottomans. It was the Jews who drained the swamps, defeated malaria and devloped land that could be farmed. This modern epic of Islamic rage against the West is caused more by envy and embarassment than any historical or present wrongdoing or even present American Foriegn Policy. We are dealing with entire peoples who would rather die than admit that they are wrong and have done wrong. These ridiculous arguments against what I see as the very spare history of anti-Jewish acts by Arabs and Muslims on this Wikipedia article will persist until Wikipedia cowtows to the pressure and the espouses the modern myth that Muslims were kind and Jews flourished among them until 1948 and the "despicable" act of the U.N. in recognizing a long needed correction of history in cooperating to give World Jewry back the nation European Rome robbed them of and the debt the entire World owed the Jews. Recall that these kind Islamic Arab nations drove their Jewish populations out as soon as they lost the 1948 war against the newly establish nation of Israel. Yet these same people daily decry prejudice in their Western host nations. Keep this article and expand it! Far too short.
Considering the vast majority of this article deals with Muslims, either in specifics or in general, and has very little on the actual religion of Islam, I have been bold enough to move it to a more appropriate title. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
To begin such an article with the quote "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. [1] is POV. We already discussed this elsewhere. I suspect that this quote is taken out of context. Also, let's try to introduce some structure to this amorphous text. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 12:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We all know very well that the Qur'an contains many contradictory verses about Jews and Christians (the article now gives a cursory treatment to this issue). Hopefully, editors will not attempt to insert verses like "There is no compulsion in religion" (see the article's title). Beit Or 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless a paragraph is not tied to Anti-semtism by the author it shouldn't be included in anti-semitism articles. -- Aminz 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
They should write it at least once at the beginning, shouldn't they? Or they should wait till the last paragraph and then say, the antisemitism ideas was too new!!-- Aminz 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article (and, presumably, other articles too) contains many links to a collection of English translations of Muslim texts. While the texts themselves are obviously not copyrighted, their English translations most certainly are. Thus, this site looks like one huge copyvio to which we should never link. Beit Or 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This article uses quotes from Gerber, and Lewis to describe the interpretation of the Quranic verses describing the Jews. The fact is that only a Muslim scholar, with appropriate education in Islamic Law and Quranic studies can interpret the Quranic verses to mean any thing. That does not mean that Quranic verses can't be quoted. It only means that those who are not (Islamic) scholars can't say "the quran says such and such". Thus there are portion of the section the "Jews in the Quran" for which better references must be found or they must be deleted. 74.12.13.44 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am only asking since these scholars are used as sources in the section "Jews in the Quran". Bless sins 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Reponse here:
Other very biased statements in this article:
"They refused to accept Muhammad's teachings, and eventually he fought them, defeated them, and most of them were killed"
" The traditional biographies of Muhammad describe the expulsion of the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir from Medina, the massacre of Banu Qurayza, and Muhammad's attack on the Jews of Khaybar. The rabbis of Medina are singled out as "men whose malice and enmity was aimed at the Apostle of God [i.e., Muhammad]". "
These statements MUST be taken in context. That is, they must show that these actions of muslims were in response to Jews attempting to assasinate Muahmmad, and (in case of Banu Qurayza), the Jews attempted to attack the Muslims they were at peace with. Bless sins 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The tags are supposed to specify the issue as accurately as possible. All the tags are created by us. Should you state a policy requiring the tag to go, it can be removed. -- Aminz 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
H.S. I didn't lose that. I really don't wish to bring this issue to RfC. It won't be good for any of us and I don't have any personal problem with any particular editor. I am really trying to discuss this on the talk pages. -- Aminz 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated in the Antisemitism talk page, some scholars such as Cahen don't believe there was any antisemitism, while others argue there was indeed some little antisemitism. For example, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion has only one sentence to say about Islam as far as I remember and that sentence is: "In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." Claude Cahen in Dhimmi article when touching the Antisemitism states: "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism". According to S. D. Goitein (the source which Humus Sapiens used when Johnson used it but removed it when I used it), writes: "For Islam, see the concise, up-to-date, and authorative article "Dhimma" by Claude Cahen in EI, which registers also the relevant material."
If the article wants to be summerized in one or two sentences, it should be the summary of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion or that of Cahen. Mark Cohen also quotes "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism"
Another point is usage of Encyclopaedia Judaica I stated my concerns about the way it was quoted in Antisemitism talk page. Aside from these points, any quote from this source should be attributed to it. I am not yet convinced that this source should be considered like Academic Encyclopedias on Judaism or on the other hand something like Catholic Encyclopedia or Jewish Encyclopedia. There are other problems with the way the source is presented which at the moment is not my main concern. -- Aminz 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All the sources I've used are notable and academic. Claude Cahen, Bernard Lewis, The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism, etc etc -- Aminz 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference to the Encyclopedia Judaica in this article, but it does not specify where in the encyclopedia this quote is. Please add this to the reference.-- Sefringle 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any response to this Beit Or?? Also, I'm removing long-standing unsourced material. Bless sins 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please justify your reversions here: Bless sins 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In so doing, you have changed the meaning of the referenced text, apparently without even checking the sources. Beit Or 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made some edits putting the conflicts with the three tribes in context, please discuss on talk beofre reverting. Bless sins 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
BeitOr, you have totally misprepresented sources on the description of the events with the Banu Qaynuqa. You removed the part of about Muhammad's negotiations, and also the part about a quarrel. Bless sins 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with presenting Muslim POV and the sentence makes this clear. -- Aminz 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a breath of fresh air to see an article on Islam that isn't full of weasel words, and doesn't preface every black mark on Islam with justification or finger pointing at other groups. Arrow740 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The {{totallydisputed}} tag is displayed at the beginning of this article. What is being disputed?-- Sefringle 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The main discussion can be found on the Antisemitism talk page actually. -- Aminz 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Intro says "and whether it is more or less common than amongst people of other religions" but I cannot find the discussion about this in the main text. Equally I wonder whether we should include whether Islam is more "anti" toward Judaism than toward any other religion? -- BozMo talk 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam.
In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness: it was projected as the sole Western effort at recolonization within Islamic sphere. This perception has triggered intese antipathy for Zionism and its Jewish supporters, often viewed as indistinguishable, and has resulted in the revival of harshly negative imagery spawned in the altogether different sphere of medieval Christendom. Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience. Once again, these themes have proven flexible, readily transferable from milieu to milieu.
Beit Or, please state your objections. The diff in question is [33]. -- Aminz 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, why this article should start with a section on "Jewish people in the Qur'an" and "Jewish people in the Muslim tradition". These have nothing to do with Antisemitism. The Yahud article in EoI is about Yahud. Lewis in his *book* discusses this. That's a book. But in all scholarly articles on this topic, such a section doesn't appear. The only article that gives a little bit details (and in passing) is the one in Judica Encyclopedia. -- Aminz 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, that "from theological perspective" is what the source says and seems to me to say that Muhammad criticized them because he thought they should do so according to their scripture. Without that, one might think Muhammad got angry at them and attacked them on other grounds. -- Aminz 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Response to #5 in statement made by Proabivouac on 04:16, 2 February 2007, "This sentence is completely ridiculous. Jesus' was a Jew who criticized other Jews; Muhammad criticized the Jews. " Jesus was only a Jew in the sense that he was born into an Israelite family. Muhammad doesn't criticize the Jewish race or ethnic group, rather the Jews who converted to Islam are praised by the Quran. Muhammad criticizes the Jews on thier actions and beliefs, the same way Jesus criticizes Jews. Bless sins 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: my edit on 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) and others has not been addressed. --
Aminz
23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged the article for this. I haven't been involved with the article and wouldn't know how best to word the lead myself, but it needs a sentence with the title phrase, or perhaps just the title words, in bold, ideally starting "Islam and antisemitism is...". WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. Thanks. Itsmejudith 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Who exactly is Gerber? What exactly is his full name and what are his qualifications?-- Sefringle 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or please answer the following question (I would really appreciate it): what is that makes Gerber a scholar on the Quran, and its interpretation as according to the various schools of thoughts? Bless sins 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be thick, but I really can't see that the removal of a series of links is vandalism. In my book vandalism is blanking a whole page with "nah nah nah nah nah poo-poo". And then we still assume good faith and inform the editor kindly that their "test" has been reverted. Articles don't have to have external links at all, so it is not seriously damaging the encyclopedia to remove them. And in this case, all the links are to articles and websites making strong political points. Take for example one sourced to Haaretz. No problem with Haaretz as a reliable source, however the link is not to news but an op-ed piece. How were these links chosen and why? Sure, it is a point that needs to be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Itsmejudith 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but Beit Or, I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my question above ( here) Bless sins 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put words into my mouth. All the links can go as far as I'm concerned, the Ramadan interview with the others. Any that editors consider to contain notable facts or viewpoints should be cited in the article. Itsmejudith 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody explain why this tag is placed here.-- Sefringle 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Because it is not directly relevant to antisemitism. Please show me one scholarly article on antisemitism which discusses this in this much detail. Many parts of section is based on Yahud article in Encyclopedia of Islam which is talking about Yahud. -- Aminz 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God. In certain aspects, Muhammad utilized the Bible in a manner similar to that of the Christian theologians, since he found in it the announcement of his own coming, but he also used the New Testament in the same way. As a result, Jews and Christians, although "infidels," are both regarded by the Koran as "Peoples of the Book," possessing Scriptures.
Since no other suggestions for sorting the lead have been forthcoming, may I suggest the following:
The question of whether there is antisemitism in Islam or among Muslims has been discussed in relation to various aspects of Islamic tradition and the practice of Muslims, including:
- the history of early Islam and the relationship of Muhammad to Arab tribes that practised forms of Judaism;
- the way that Jewish minorities were treated in medieval Islamic states; and
- attitudes and practices of modern Muslims and governments of countries with Muslim majorities.
NB that I'm only putting this forward to get a discussion going. I don't think it's a particularly good lead. It'll probably please no-one but it does make a start on reflecting the current contents of the article. Itsmejudith 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, why do you say this is not relevant? Could you spell it out please because I really don't see why it wouldn't be. Itsmejudith 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re this diff [35], as explained above it should be sourced to the author and the type of attack should be specified and further should be put into its context. -- Aminz 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I took this out because it tries to say that Islamic fundamentalism are true followers of the Qur'an. Any group of Muslims believe they are following what the Qur'an really says, so that's POV and unreferenced. The sentence is also not adding any information to the article. We already know that the Qur'an is the holy book of Muslims. -- Aminz 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If there are (relevent) scholars who say something, it would possibly merit inclusion into the article. But since when do school books represent Muslim beliefs? Unless this literature circulates the "department of religion" at Saudi universities, or other religious institutions, it says nothing about Islam and Muslims.
In addition, it needs to be justified that the source actually says that this curriculum is antiSemitic because such and such. Bless sins 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, you must show how the Hezbollah quote, as well as Saudi textbooks, are representative of the belief of the Muslim World. If they aren't, then they must be given extremely little space, considering the extremly little people (out of 1.2 billion Muslims) they represent. Bless sins 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Basic Law of Government of the Saudi Kingdom adopted in 1992 declared that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a) [1].
Also, these are clearly comments as to the Koran. They are not, in contrast, statements as to secular policy.
The quotes, brought together, support the comments now added to the article by a Professor of Islam that Moslems are taught anti-semitic interpretations of the Qu'ran.
As to your other points, please point us to specific Wiki policy that supports your notions that: 1) the source must identify the comment as anti-semitic -- rather than "res ipsa loquitur"; 2) quotes by Palestineans (because they are small in number - a comment I view as belittling, to be quite honest ... they may be too small in number to be important to you, but if you read Arabic or Western press I believe you will see that others have a different view), Hezbollah, or Saudi government-approved textbooks that invoke the Qu'ran are not representative enough to appear hear. Surely, you do not think that all should appropriately be set forth here is a statistically significant sampling of the entire Moslem world, or statements by Imams or professors of Islam. If you do, please point to the Wiki policy that supports that sentiment. Tx. -- Epeefleche 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition, responding to your lone comment, the references in the article to what is being taught in Saudi schools relates precisely to Islam. It is not as though the Kingdom is advancing a secular view. The Kingdom is specifically advancing an interpretation of the Qu'ran. An interpretation of the Qu'ran, communicated to the children of the country by a country that is the seat of Islam and which has adopted Islamic law as its governing law, is not only appropriate for inclusion, it is I would suggest far more notable than a lone comment by a scholar or imam might be, hidden away in some dusty book, perhaps read by no one. Again, I see no Wiki support for your approach either. -- Epeefleche 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is not "seat of Islam". Infact the writers of the textbook are not even Islamic scholars (if u disagree, please prove it otherwise). What an ordinary (wo)man who happens to be a Muslim writes, has no bearing on Muslim belief. I suggest you look at WP:RS. It is clear from wiki policy that a three year old girl who says "Jews are apes and pigs is written in the Koran" is not a relaible source. Bless sins 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's my argument. In order for you to include something in this article it must be,
1. An allegation of antiSemitism [per relevency].
2. An allegation against Islam, Quran, or Muslims in general [per relevency].
3. The one making the allegation must be a reliable source in area they are making the allegation [37].
4. Due weight should be given to the allegation and the subject concerned [38].
Bless sins 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You still have not responded to most of my above comments. Responding to your above suggestion, though, my thoughts are as follows.
1 & 2. I think that it suffices for something to be patently anti-semitic. I do not see any need in such circumstances for there to be an allegation of antisemitism. Massacres, comments that Jews are pigs or apes, etc. speak for themselves. If you have a different view, let me know where in Wiki policy it comes from.
3. You might want to take a look at Wiki policy vis-a-vis your thoughts on reliable sources. In any event, I do not think that we have to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams. I think it quite appropriate of course to quote those people. But I think it quite proper for there to be references here to statements made by Hamas, Egyptian and Saudi authorities, and -- because it is broadcast by the Saudi government to Moslems worldwide -- yes, a 3-year-old girl, as standing for the proposition that an on-its-face antisemitic interpretation of the Qu'ran has been delivered by the authorities and those in power in the Arab world to the Moslem population, who have at times learned this from a very early age.
4. I am not sure that I follow this last point. -- Epeefleche 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Per WP:OR, you can't declare some specific act to be antiSemitism, just as I can't declare something to be Islamophobia. And yes, each act must be judged independently, not all murders of Jews would be considered antiSemitism. Per wp:or provide your sources.
2.It has to talk about Islam, or Muslims in general. That should be obvious as the page is called "Islam and antiSmeitism". Also, it has to be notable enough to be included. For example, some XYZ Muslim down my street does NOT qualify as notable, unless there many reliable sources that report on him.
3. "...to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams." I didn't sya that. But we can't get scholars who no expertise on Islam to comment. They just don't know enough about the religion to comment on it. Also, note I have never seen a 3 year old scholar. Also, it is rare to find a 3-year old notable enough to have/his beliefs published, and regarded as representative of 1.2 billion people worldwide. Again, per WP:OR, if you can find a source that suggets that this unnamed 3 year old is representative of Muslims, then you can include her. But its up to a scholar to make that call, not you or I.
4. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, then why not just look at [39]? Bascially it means you can't overblow the view of a minority group (like Hamas, Hezbollah), in an article talking about mainstream people (i.e. Muslims). Bless sins 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A review of the section of the book written by Gerber says:
So, one of us should read Gerber for checking the factual accuracy of all statements in this article. -- Aminz 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If these are written using sources which are not talking about antisemitism, they should be moved to their own articles. -- Aminz 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also the sections on "Hamas", "Saudi Arabia" and "Egpyt" should go under a section in Modern times. I can also see undue weight given to one or two scholars or organizations. -- Aminz 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As to your first, I am not sure what you are referring to.
-- Epeefleche 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This section is clearly relevant and belongs in this article. I am going to restore it.--
Sefringle
04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, can you show me an academic article on Antisemitism which goes into this detail. Also, you can not use Yahud article in EoI since it is not writing about antisemitism. -- Aminz 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For example, why Proa removed that bit about Christian theologians? He said it is not relevant but it is more relevant than what is already presentend in the article. -- Aminz 07:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
only if Islamic antisemitism is the main focus of the article.
Secondly, all of the above references are of course "talking about antisemitism," as you put it. That is clear on its face. So it is not as though they are not relevant.
Thirdly, your definition of "original research" is not the common one.
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
Please note that that list does not suggest, as you have, that it constitutes original research if one stiches together facts as has been done here.
See [40] -- Epeefleche 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S.--one last point. You write: "The Qur'an doesn't call for anything, the commentators do. The Qur'an doesn't talk, the commentators make it talk. ... According to many scholars, Antisemitism wasn't among Muslims in classical times because there was no particular discriminative persecution against the Jews." That seems to me to be somewhat at odds with the quotations from the Qu'ran that have been presented (and, at times, deleted) in the article. I guess that it makes the point as to why it is important to keep those direct quotations in the article, as well as the interpretations of it that the masses hear, whether from mufti or from Saudi TV broadcast to Moslems around the world.-- Epeefleche 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I have read the page and I am surprised that the article still exists! It contains wrong and misleading records of "history" and the page is full of "muslim hate" propagnda!". I ask wikipedia to delete this article before further people are mislead! History was written by the "western minds" who envied and hated what Islam brought to this world. Therefore, it is not good enough to repeat the insaity again and again. The person who wrote this article is either too naiive or just delibrately trying to project history and Islam "negatively". For a brief and accurate "history and relationg of Jews and Muslims" read this webpage Attitudes and relations of Jews towards early Muslims[[ Queen of Sheba 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)] 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why Islam should be centered out for any modern developments of anti-Semitism. It is islamophobic to imply that an entire religion can be anti-semitic because certain fundamentalists have made anti-semitic comments. If that were legitimate, Mel Gibson just made Australia an anti-semitic country. Even the declared agenda of not thinking Israel should exist does not mean they hate Jews, just that they deny Israel is a legitimate country. The title of the article is biased in and of itself. Quite frankly, the word "anti-semitic" has become such propaganda it's hardly more than an epithet.
Karen Armstrong's A History of God and "The Battle for God" negate just about everything written here. A little tidbit to show I'm not making it up:
Nobody in the new empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith; indeed, for a century after Muhammad's death, conversion was not encouraged and, in about 700, was actually forbidden by law: Muslims believed that Islam was for the Arabs as Judaism was for the sons of Jacob. As the "people of the book" (ahl al-kitab), Jews and Christians were granted religious liberty as dhimmis, protected minority groups.
A History of God, Karen Armstrong, p. 159
and in 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, the Catholic monarchs, conquered Granada. The crusades against Islam in the Middle East had failed, but at least the Muslims had been flushed out of Europe. Europe became Muslim-free in 1499. Ferdinand and Isabella then signed the Edict of Expulsion, designed to rid Spain of its Jews. Many Jews were so attached to "al-Andalus" (as the old Muslim kingdom had been called) that they converted to Christianity, but about 80,000 Jews crossed the border into Portugal, while 50, 000 fled to the new Muslim Ottoman empire, where they were given a warm welcome.
precis A Battle for God, The History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong, p. 3 A nomaly 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
HAMADEHA: I agree!!! This is the most biased garbage i have ever read on wikipedia!!! I am so offended by this that i am thinking of starting my own page. First of all, the quran states that Judaism is not an enemy but a friend. They are reffered to as the people of the book, which is a generous an warm praise. There is no shift in tone in the quran because mohammed was rejected by the jews!!! That is the stupidest thing i have ever read. Whoever wrote this article has never even opened a quran. Someone needs to remove this bias...
This whole article is very poorly written. Ask yourself this; does it contain sufficient levels of balance, research, and expertise to warrant publication in print? The answer is an emphatic no. Even if it were submitted as an essay or paper for a student class, I suspect it would be marked poorly. Why? Because this is a complex subject served up in a simplistic manner (note: I said simplistic, not simplified), but it's also obvious that the writer of the piece has a definite viewpoint that he or she is determined to pursue.
The choice of quotes in the article are devoid of any wider context and are thus quite meaningless (they also serve to amplify the obvious bias of the writer). Imagine if I were to write an article about Israeli views of Palestinian's and I collected the most inflammatory comments I could find from Israeli's and then published them, thus giving a false impression that they were representative of Israeli's as a whole.
Once again, Wikipedia proves that far from being an authoritative source of information for the internet community, it is in fact a holding place for any misinformed, uninformed and just plain biased views. [A.M.H.]
not wanting to follow 5:32? wether it be to subjugate non-followers or kill them (transcript of modern clerical speech/incitation for revolt) it IS written in the koran, you cannot deny it. as a devout follower of christian faith i have no problem following my book to the letter, why cant you follow yours? is it because you can see that your book wants you to do bad things to others, that it derives its principles upon those written before? Muhammhed took pages from the torah and lessons he liked to suit his needs. the stories are shorter that you may draw your own conclusions. now whose book is corrupt?
That thing at the end about "Hug a jew" was probably a reference to this article on the MWU site which I linked to.
Read semitic. Then you'll understand that it is stupid to say Islam can be anti-semitic: Arabic people are a semitic people!
AAAAAAAARG!!! Fix it please!
This article is highly biased against Islam. It doesn't provide any evidence other than references to obscure authors (that might or might have not existed), and biased interpretations of selected verses of the Koran, the Holy Book.
I would like to remind people that the only serious references that should be used in a serious article should be the ones that are accepted by the majority of muslim scholars (a good starting point is the Al-Azhar University in Cairo). Let me just add this point to illustrate my point. It would not be serious to have a non-Jew commenting on the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a serious encyclopedia, because it is a subject in which Jews are the first concerned, and they can easily provide clear arguments of why such a document should not be taken seriously. At the same time, regarding Islam, I would suggest to let muslim scholars deal with the subject. Thank you.
Response to RK: My general impression is that most people who talk about Islam have no idea what they are talking about. They just put together sparse information they gather about the supposed anti-semitism of hand-picked islamic writings. My point is the following: at least muslim scholars know what they are talking about. My second point is the following: you would never find a non-Jew commenting on jewish writings, because they would definitely be considered anti-semitic. I think I have said enough on this subject. Thank you for your attention.
This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this? Martin
Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians. RK
"O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers (non-Muslims) who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Koran 9:123)
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Koran 5:51)
"O ye who believe! Take not for friends Unbelievers (non-Muslims) rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (Koran 4:144)
"Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers (non-Muslims). Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide." (Koran 5:80)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)
Martin writes "This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this?"
See the link below. It will answer your question. The short answer is this: Early verses in the Quran promote tolerance, later verses promote intolerance and hatred.
“Verily ye [unbelievers],19 and the [false] gods that ye worship besides Allah, are [but] fuel for hell! To it will ye [surely] come!”20
I find it quite quixotic to be defending Islam on the talk page of "Islam and anti-semitism", but here's my shot.
First of all, you (RK) quoted the Noble Qur'an very disingenuously. You have not given who's translation that is. To simply pluck random verses from the Noble Qur'an without the context is ridiculous. The Noble Qur'an is not for the uneducated; only those with knowledge will understand it (see 3:7 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html). Now, let us examine the verses you quoted in context, one by one:
009.120
YUSUFALI: It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighbourhood, to refuse to follow Allah's Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his: because nothing could they suffer or do, but was reckoned to their credit as a deed of righteousness,- whether they suffered thirst, or fatigue, or hunger, in the cause of Allah, or trod paths to raise the ire of the Unbelievers, or received any injury whatever from an enemy: for Allah suffereth not the reward to be lost of those who do good;-
PICKTHAL: It is not for the townsfolk of Al-Madinah and for those around them of the wandering Arabs so stay behind the messenger of Allah and prefer their lives to his life. That is because neither thirst nor toil nor hunger afflicteth them in the way of Allah, nor step they any step that angereth the disbelievers, nor gain they from the enemy a gain, but a good deed is recorded for them therefor. Lo! Allah loseth not the wages of the good.
SHAKIR: It did not beseem the people of Medina and those round about them of the dwellers of the desert to remain behind the Messenger of Allah, nor should they desire (anything) for themselves in preference to him; this is because there afflicts them not thirst or fatigue or hunger in Allah's way, nor do they tread a path which enrages the unbelievers, nor do they attain from the enemy what they attain, but a good work is written down to them on account of it; surely Allah does not waste the reward of the doers of good;
009.121
YUSUFALI: Nor could they spend anything (for the cause) - small or great- nor cut across a valley, but the deed is inscribed to their credit: that Allah may requite their deed with the best (possible reward).
PICKTHAL: Nor spend they any spending, small or great, nor do they cross a valley, but it is recorded for them, that Allah may repay them the best of what they used to do.
SHAKIR: Nor do they spend anything that may be spent, small or great, nor do they traverse a valley, but it is written down to their credit, that Allah may reward them with the best of what they have done.
009.122
YUSUFALI: Nor should the Believers all go forth together: if a contingent from every expedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them,- that thus they (may learn) to guard themselves (against evil).
PICKTHAL: And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.
SHAKIR: And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?
009.123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
So, as apparent from the previous verses, this passage is dealing with times of war. It is only saying that, in times of war, fight the nearest enemies first. And "unbeliever" does not mean "non-Muslim" in this verse. It in fact means "enemy of Islam", or "anti-Muslim".
I noticed that you attempted to give a defintion to "unbeliever", when in fact the word is vague and refers to different people in each verse it is mentioned. To conclude that all non-Muslims are unbelievers is oversimplification as well as misdirection. By the way, your link, " http://www.christianislamicforum.org/jihad_in_islamic_theology.htm", doesn't work.
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
005.069
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.
If you would like to give your own definition to the word, go ahead. But don't expect knowledgable Muslims to agree with it.
NEXT
005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Notice how it says "the Jews and the Christians"? This verse is referring to Jews and Christians as a whole. It says nothing about individual Jews or individual Christians. And this is practical advice as well.
NEXT
004.137
YUSUFALI: Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way.
SHAKIR: Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.
004.138
YUSUFALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;-
PICKTHAL: Bear unto the hypocrites the tidings that for them there is a painful doom;
SHAKIR: Announce to the hypocrites that they shall have a painful chastisement:
004.139
YUSUFALI: Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
PICKTHAL: Those who chose disbelievers for their friends instead of believers! Do they look for power at their hands? Lo! all power appertaineth to Allah.
SHAKIR: Those who take the unbelievers for guardians rather than believers. Do they seek honor from them? Then surely all honor is for Allah.
004.140
YUSUFALI: Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-
PICKTHAL: He hath already revealed unto you in the Scripture that, when ye hear the revelations of Allah rejected and derided, (ye) sit not with them (who disbelieve and mock) until they engage in some other conversation. Lo! in that case (if ye stayed) ye would be like unto them. Lo! Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell;
SHAKIR: And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell.
004.141
YUSUFALI: (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?"- but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" but Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.
PICKTHAL: Those who wait upon occasion in regard to you and, if a victory cometh unto you from Allah, say: Are we not with you? and if the disbelievers meet with a success say: Had we not the mastery of you, and did we not protect you from the believers? - Allah will judge between you at the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of success) against the believers.
SHAKIR: Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And i. there IS a chance for the unbelievers, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers? So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.
004.142
YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance;
PICKTHAL: Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little;
SHAKIR: Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and He shall requite their deceit to them, and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little.
004.143
YUSUFALI: (They are) distracted in mind even in the midst of it,- being (sincerely) for neither one group nor for another whom Allah leaves straying,- never wilt thou find for him the way.
PICKTHAL: Swaying between this (and that), (belonging) neither to these nor to those. He whom Allah causeth to go astray, thou (O Muhammad) wilt not find a way for him:
SHAKIR: Wavering between that (and this), (belonging) neither to these nor to those; and whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall not find a way for him.
004.144
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?
004.145
YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-
PICKTHAL: Lo! the hypocrites (will be) in the lowest deep of the Fire, and thou wilt find no helper for them;
SHAKIR: Surely the hypocrites are in the lowest stage of the fire and you shall not find a helper for them.
004.146
YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent, mend (their lives) hold fast to Allah, and purify their religion as in Allah's sight: if so they will be (numbered) with the believers. And soon will Allah grant to the believers a reward of immense value.
PICKTHAL: Save those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and make their religion pure for Allah (only). Those are with the believers. And Allah will bestow on the believers an immense reward.
SHAKIR: Except those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and are sincere in their religion to Allah, these are with the believers, and Allah will grant the believers a mighty reward.
004.147
YUSUFALI: What can Allah gain by your punishment, if ye are grateful and ye believe? Nay, it is Allah that recogniseth (all good), and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: What concern hath Allah for your punishment if ye are thankful (for His mercies) and believe (in Him)? Allah was ever Responsive, Aware.
SHAKIR: Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? And Allah is the Multiplier of rewards, Knowing.
Clearly, these verses is dealing with hypocrites. When this verse is looked upon, in context, the reasoning behind this advice is evident. Those who befriend Jews and Christians instead of Muslims are hypocrites. And, as explained in 4:145, hypocrites are among the worst people in Islam. "Islamic" terrorists are hypocrites, they are not following Islam as you so dilligently claim.
NEXT
005.077
YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of folk who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from a plain road.
SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.
005.078
YUSUFALI: Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
PICKTHAL: Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress.
SHAKIR: Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
005.079
YUSUFALI: Nor did they (usually) forbid one another the iniquities which they committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.
PICKTHAL: They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily evil was that they used to do!
SHAKIR: They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.
005.080
YUSUFALI: Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
PICKTHAL: Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.
SHAKIR: You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.
005.081
YUSUFALI: If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what hath been revealed to him, never would they have taken them for friends and protectors, but most of them are rebellious wrong-doers.
PICKTHAL: If they believed in Allah and the Prophet and that which is revealed unto him, they would not choose them for their friends. But many of them are of evil conduct.
SHAKIR: And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.
005.082
YUSUFALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
PICKTHAL: Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.
SHAKIR: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
005.083
YUSUFALI: And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.
PICKTHAL: When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messengers, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses.
SHAKIR: And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).
I am very tempted to say QED on this one, but I don't want to risk misunderstanding. The verses, once again, are clearly dealing with hypocrites and people who change God's Law for the purposes of sinning. These people befriend Jews and Christians for the purposes of sinning. That's why it is wrong.
NEXT
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
The entire Sura deals with war. Within context, this can clearly be seen as telling Muslims to fight during a war. I highly recommend reading Sura 9 in its entirety before referring to its individual verses.
To claim that "Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians..." is laughable. There is nothing to hide, there is no shame in these verses. You act as if Muslims keep these in secret or something. It's right there in the Noble Qur'an, there's nothing to hide. Do you really think I am that stupid?
Back to the point: Have some "Muslims" used these verses as justification for anti-semitism? Of course. But that's just ignorance, as I have clearly shown.
And now I'm expecting you to respond. Kirbytime 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
taken from the article:
After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed, he said that "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures." (XCVIII: The Proof: 6-7)
---
I was actually rather impressed with this article. Historically, under Muslim rule there has been very little anti-Semitism (with a few exceptions). The religion of Islam itself has barriers against anti-Semitism, just as Judaism has barriers against maltreatment of the sons of Ishmael. The current mess in the Middle East is not a religious issue, in my opinion, and I think that the article did a fairly good job of expressing this.
-- 66.92.69.84
---
taken from the article:
Around 700 CE, Jews were forcibly converted to Islam during the Arab conquest of North Africa. Around 970 CE Jews in Barcelona, Spain were massacred by local Muslims. All of their property was confiscated. Around 1000 CE Muslim pogroms in Egypt killed many Jews. Near this same time, during the Islamic Almohade control of Spain, many Jews were killed by Muslims. Many Jews were forced to convert to Islam. Others fled the country. In 1050 CE the Islamic community in Morocco began a series of pogroms against Jews that killed several thousand in the Jewish community.
This is wrong, especially in regard to the people of the book. They had the choice to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule or to emigrate. I did some research and I found exactly one mention of an attempt of forcible conversion: of an Christian Arab tribe who then emigrated into Byzantine territory. Some reading for al-Andalus and Egypt: [1] [2] (BTW a fascinating source of information) -- Elian
taken from the article:
Many believe that Muhammad's name existed in all other "Holy Books", however as part of their mischief the "Banu Israel" tribe destroyed their existence. However muslims are obligated to respect those who believe in the same God.
taken from the article:
Al-Tabari, a 10th century Islamic commentator on the Koran, gives an interpretation of verses 5:112-115. He holds that apostles were punished by Allah by turning them into apes and pigs. Many Muslims hold that Allah still will use this form of punishment for Muslims who commit sins; this punishment is specifically linked to the idea that all Jews are sinners. The idea is that by threatening a non-observant Muslim with the punishment once given to Jews, a Muslim will stop erring. (Uri Rubin, "Apes, Pigs, and the Islamic Identity," Israel Oriental Studies XVII (1997), pp. 93-102.)
moved from Talk:Islam and alleged anti-Semitism
For a balanced article, the claims of anti-Semitism should be balanced by a rebuttal by those who deny such claims. -- Uncle Ed 15:30 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
This sentence would be better if it named a specific individual or group of note who considered this verse to be anti-Semitic. Martin
I'm not particularly doubting its accuracy - I'd just like to see it changed to something like In 1985, the Universal Council of Rabbis, which represents 85% of Jewish synagogues, condemned this teaching as "grossly anti-Semitic".
On a similar note, the claim that the verse shows that Abraham was a Muslim and not a Jew also needs to be attributed to some prominent Islamic scholar/group/etc. Martin
I'd just like to add that calling Abraham a Jew is almost as anachronistic as calling Adam or Noah a Jew. Abraham's sons included both the supposed ancestor of all Jews and the supposed ancestor of all Arabs; if he was any ethnicity, my guess would be Chaldean... - Mustafaa 09:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This really is ridiculous in the arabic language the term semitic is used to describe the Arab race. How on earth can islam be anti semitic?!?!? The correct term really is Miso-Judaic [3]. But even so the Ihud mentioned in islamic litrerature were a Judiac cult which worshipped Ezra as the son of God and this cult does not exist anymore. The Quran says nothing bad about Eldhyn Hudwe which means "The Hebrews" as refering to the modern Jews.
Hey, if anyone gets the chance to check the paper references in here, they should be checked. I've found enough errors already to seriously undermine confidence in this article. - Mustafaa 09:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
not wanting to follow 5:32? wether it be to subjugate non-followers or kill them (transcript of modern clerical speech/incitation for revolt) it is written in the koran, you cannot deny it. as a devout follower of christian faith i have no problem following my book to the letter, why cant you follow yours? is it because you can see that your book derives its principles upon those written before? Muhammhed took pages from the torah and lessons he liked to suit his needs. the stories are shorter that you may draw your own conclusions. now whose book is corrupt?
Islam is similar to Judaism, in that both see themselves as both spiritual descendants of Abraham and followers of the same prophets. Islamic scholars are quick to point out that Islam encourages toleration and respect for Jews, as well as Christians, as both are considered " People of the Book", meaning they share common scriptures and prophets. Many people have produced hadith concerning Muhammad that showed how he did business with the Jewish tribes of his city and how he ordered Muslims to share food with their Jewish neighbors.
Historically there has not been as much anti-Semitism in Muslim lands as in Christian lands, up until the Twentieth century. While many Jews were persecuted in Europe, they enjoyed relative political and religious freedom in Islamic societies. After helping the Muslims conquer Spain, they helped the Muslims govern the country throughout the Middle Ages (and parts remained under Muslim control until the completion of the Reconquista in 1492); during that time, Jewish citizens had rights nearly equal to those of American citizens today. Jewish historians refer to that time period as "The Golden Age of Judaism", which ended in 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella gave them May, June, and July to leave Spain permanently. The Catholic Monarchs declaired this to be due to their effect on the religious faith of the Marranos and Jews who had converted to Christianity.
Jews, and their Rabbis, gained prominence in the courts of Baghdad, Cairo, and Istanbul, performing the duties of palace physicians, finance officers, and even government ministers known as "viziers.' As a minority, Jews exempt from Islamic law ( Sharia), and the governments allowed them a degree of self-rule by appointing Jewish leaders to implement Jewish law for their communities. Important synagogues dot the major cities of the Middle East, and relations between Muslims and Jews have been relatively calm for over a thousand years.
Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased greatly in the twentieth century. This can be traced to various sources; some of it can be traced to long-held prejudices and historical misunderstandings. The main reason for the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East in the past fifty years may be due to the poor state of relations between Israel, a Jewish-majority state, and the isolation enforced by the neighboring Arab countries. Criticism of Israeli policy has resulted in a marked rise in distrust of Jews and anti-Semitism at the popular level. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 05:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe that your affiliation with Rabbis and whatnot is clouding your perspective on this issue. There is much speculation as to the persecution of Jews in North Africa during the period mentioned (read above complaints), especially considering its contradiction with the concurrent Moorish state in pre-Inquisition Spain. Also, I don't find it prudent to create an article claiming to represent Muslim clerics' view of miso-Judaism citing mutliple quotes from one cleric and one from another. In addition to that, the conflict occuring over occupation in Palestine is downplayed and made to seem like a poor excuse for any hard feelings/rebellion. If you wish for this to be anything more than grey propaganda, then you must cite multiple POVs on this issue, not just your own POV stated as fact.-- Mymunkee 07:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is it Islam and anti-semitism or muslims and anti-semitism? The actions of un-islamic rulers or kings should not form a part of an article about Islam and anti-semitism, that is misleading, if the actions of a "clinically insane egyptian ruler" are representative of anti-semitism in islam then the massacre of praying muslims by a jew in Hebron are representative of anti-arab muslim sentiments in judaism.
RK, I'm afraid you may have missed my point, what I meant was that the actions of a a muslim should not reflect on Islam, for example, the actions of Hitler do not reflect on christianity, the actions of the Irgun or the Stern Gang do not reflect on Judaism etc. Therefore, the actions of an Egyptian ruler, or any arab or muslim ruler should not reflect at all on the religion of Islam, you judge a religion by it's scripture not it's people, this article is about Islam and not muslims, if you want to write about muslims then create an article about anti-semitism and muslims. -- Omar 12:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is not a historical anachronism at all - unless, of course, you accept the equally unprovable secularist claim that Abraham was probably polytheist, or did not exist. In the Quran, "Muslim" is not used in its present-day sense, as an all-purpose term for Muslims as opposed to other religions (the closest equivalent of that in the Quran is "mu'min", believer); rather, it retains its original meaning of "submitter". If there's one thing Muslims, Christians, and Jews can agree on, it's that Abraham submitted to God's will; that's about the least you can say of anyone willing to sacrifice his son at God's command. - Mustafaa 08:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't really see that. As I read it, "argue that..." removes the need for "allegedly", and so does "consider" in the first half of the former sentence, whereas "in that" implies factuality. It's not a matter of style so much as of syntax. - Mustafaa 00:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While Abraham is the founder of monotheism, he is not also the founder of the form of Judaism, Christianity and Islam practiced today, and not even the Judaism practiced and taught by Moses who came after Abraham. All three (often referred to as Abrahamic religions) developed their unique rituals over time while continuing to remain monotheistic, each in their own way. Therefore Abraham was a Muslim only in the sense of the word explained above (i.e. submitter).
Qur'an verses should not be viewed as "usurping the patriarch of Judaism to promote another religion" because they essentially promote monotheism more than anything else. However, becuase Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion because follower's faith is not related to his or her descent, it may challenge the descent part while it does not challenge the monotheism which is also part of Judaism. Bardylis 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I agree that both views should be included with equal consideration. Bardylis 13:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two articles here on Arab_Anti-Semitism and Islam and anti-Semitism. Both very negative. Are there any article here on Israeli racism against Arabs and Judaism negative views on Gentiles? Why not? That's not uncommon either, and I can easily write articles on that topic. Israel Shahak actually wrote a book on it, didn't he?
Some Islamists claim Kemal Atatürk was a secret Jew. Do Muslim anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Caliphate-destroyers" in the same way that Christian anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Christ killers"? GCarty 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does it make a difference, I agree that jews have been treated horribly by christians throught the middle ages to now. this does not mean that moslems are free of blame. I beleive that the jews of medina were the first of the jews killed by moslems themselves being killed by mohammad, and the jews were killed through out the reign of the moslems. The jews were persecuted and killed in pretty much all the moslem and arab countries.
The text now reads "After Muhammad's efforts to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed[citation needed]..."
I'm quite curious as to what may be used as evidence to substantiate this claim. 71.141.168.28 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The link to substantiate this claim is : ( http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/had.html#a23464).
Firstly, these "hadiths" fail to mention the context. (many of them say "the rest is irrelevent"). Secondly, the author doens't identify him/herself, or give reference to an authentic source. ALso, the associcated article [10] seems to be unscholarly. And ofcourse, the site answering-islam.org.uk is quite POV. BEtter sources need to be found. Bless sins 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) And also the author clearly states that "All of the Hadeeths are translated by me personally, and I am not an expert in translation. ". Bless sins 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, pls. provide the Haddad quote (about the quranic verse) verbatim here. Thanks. Bless sins 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) An while you're at it pls. tell me how Haddad is a scholarly source on Islamic history. Bless sins 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
These claims are by some Muslim scholars. There is no evidence that "Islam" (the religion) makes these claims. Bless sins 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
ALSO, can you explain the relevency of this: "Al-Jahiz (d. 869), a ninth century Muslim zoologist and belles-lettriste who authored ...". First of all Al-Jahiz is authoring a non-theolgy, and a rather medieval scientific (as it was back then) book. How does this relate to mainstream Muslims or Islam in general? Secondly, how did this book cause the "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews"? Bless sins 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
So I'm assuming (due to lack of response) that everybody agrees this section is irrelevent. Bless sins 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, pls get the citation for this as well, or it will be removed: "This verse (interpreted to mean that they were turned into apes) is sometimes used by hostile groups to mock the Jews, on the grounds that these must have been Jews, since the Sabbath is a commandment which (according to Islam) God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers[citation needed]. "04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your citations are insufficient. What I was looking for is this:
The first point is only slightly covered by the sources you provided. None of them explicitly connects this verse with the HAMAS or other organizations. The second point I have not found in any source. Can you find me a soure that says "Sabbath is a commandment which God demanded of only Jews ", and then connect it to hostile groups mocking Jews. Bless sins 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think my version is correct. Quran (7:163-166) says that God told a group of disobedient people living by the sea: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected". Earlier verses show that these people had broken the Sabbath.
Indeed, that is exactly what the quran describes. Check out the translation here ( [12]). IT says they broke their sabbath but also that they "disregarded the warnings that had been given them, " and that they "transgressed (all) prohibitions". The Quran makes it clear that these people were disobedient and breaking the Sabbath was just one of thier sins. Infact if you look at 163,164, 165, 166; only 163 talks about Sabbath. The rest talk about other disobedience. Bless sins 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, pls. explain the relevence of this paragraph:
"In the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) Jews were forced to wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and were also forced to affix said image to their homes. (For Christians, the image was of a pig.) "
Did the Aghlabid Dynasty claim that some Jews had been transformed? The fact they made Jews wear this may be oppressive, but certainly does not mean that they claimed such a thing (esp. as they made Chrisitans wear pig images, despite no mention of Christians bieng transformed into pigs in the Quran).
Bless sins
10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello SlimVirgin, the last comment here is by me. I don't see how any of my edits have been refuted. Just to make it clearer I'll explain myself. I have made the following changes:
When I ask for source, pls don't bombard me with 10 weblinks, none of which contain the actual info. All I ask for is one good source, and perhaps quote that source, so I now where to look in it. Bless sins 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have re-added my edits. Pls discuss this issue on the talk page before reverting. Bless sins 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the section yet again. I'd leave it alone at this point, Bless sins, because I've barely scratched the surface of the quotes that are available from these sources alone. This version is very mild. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
To Pecher: "The Quran states..." is better than "The Quran contains a number of verses describing Jews being transformed into apes and pigs...". This is becuase the quran itself is quoted, and we don't need to summarize what the quran says. The Quran speaks for itself. Also, as we see below the verse, shcolars disagree at what really happened, and therefore "Jews being transformed into apes and pigs" is not completetly true. Bless sins 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, your edits disrupt the format of the entire article. Pls. pay attention to what you are doing. Bless sins 12:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, the quran states what the quran states. IF you think that the verse of the quran that is quoted says "Jews were transformed into apes and pigs", then the reader will know by looking over the quoted verse. Your comment would be redundant at best. You have to agree that "The Quran states..." is far more NPOV and accurate (no doubt about that) than what you are trying to put. Bless sins 11:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody check this verse? I think there is something wrong with the reference 17:100-104
"
Pharaoh sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharaoh] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." (Qur'an [
Quran
17:100)
Thanks -- Aminz 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, this verse : "'You will find that the most brazen among mankind, with hatred towards the believers, are the Jews and the Idolaters.' (Quran [ Quran 81:5)"
81:5 says something different I think. -- Aminz 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I was shocked when I saw Maimonides description and assessment of the treatment of the Jews. As a Muslim, I would like to apologize for that. Were I in the shoes of Muslim rulers at that time, I would have been much more tolerant I believe. -- Aminz 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
p. 41 of Bernard Lewis' book The Jews of Islam has the line "The same perception is reflected in a common oath formula: "[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew...."
He does NOT say "Throughout the ages" and he does not limit the "oath formula" to Muslims.
If you want a quote on Islam and anti-Semitism, there are plenty in his book. This is not one of them. Javadane 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The article did not describe the quote as being limited to muslims, it just says that it is a commonly used phrase. Also you have violated the 3RR, please revert yourself to avoid a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the quote to make it more neutral. That should end the conflict here. Bless sins 04:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The context in Lewis' book definitely refers to a Muslim oath as the paragraph in full lists several Muslim quotes demonstrating the Muslim perception that dhimmis were of lower, humbler, inferior status. If you'd like I can type out the whole paragraph here to make it clear. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This section, needs some changes. {BY the title, I'm assuming this section is for examples of "persecution" of Jews by Muslims.)
Bless sins 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, does any one have any comments on this topic? (namely, how are a bunch of anti-Semitic statements by clerics examples of "persecution") Bless sins 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
“[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew.” How is this a common quote? I've never read this in any book written by secular scholars of Islamic history. If it's not a claim, then other authors will have verified this. But the burden is upon whoever added this quote to support it's veracity. Otherwise it cannot be stated as fact and to do so is prejudicial. SouthernComfort 14:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This quote should be removed because NO ONE has yet provided ANY source that states that this quote is an example of "persecution". Bless sins 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? It clearly shows an example of anti-semitism in the Islamic world, it is obviously relevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? Why is it then sooo difficult for someone to provide a source that says so? I don't dispute that its irrelevent to the article, only to the section. Saying that Muslims saying a few words is an an example of "Historic persecution" is absolutely ridiculous (unless otherwise shown by a reliable source). It should be moved to a more relevent section. Bless sins 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The following is OR: "As an example of referring to Jews dishonourably as an untrustworthy group...". Lewis never said this. This part of the quote should be removed. Bless sins 11:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher inappropriately removed the following under the jsutification of "removal of random website": "Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism Muslim organizations like the US based Muslim Wake Up! (MWU) have explicitly denounced anti-semitism. Harun Yahya, a modern Muslim writer, has also denounced anti-Semitism as a pagan, and therefore un-Islamic, ideology. [17] "
Firstly, it is not a "random" website, but an active organization. Secondly, the section containes the opinion of a prominent scholar ( Harun Yahya), who yeilds influence over many Muslims. Pls. don't remove entire sections without justification on Talk. Bless sins 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a response another one of your silly removals. You removed: This verse should not be used by any mean to negate the fact that among the Jews (and Christians) will be righteous people who can be good friends as explained in the above verses, they do not fight us in our religion or our homes. They can be our neighbors, colleagues, friends, co-workers...etc We will be good to them as they are good to us. But you did not remove the content above it, even though the content above it and below it is from the same source. Why?? Also, the source is NOT providing any facts, but it is only providing one person's perspective. Bless sins 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The section obviously does not belong to the article, as the article's title is "Islam and anti-Semitism". Therefore, let's stick to the subject in question. Pecher Talk 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the purposes of this article is to show the "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". That is what this section was showing. Bless sins 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think that view is lacking from wikipedia. Why don't you starty an article about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, someone suggested that. However, what I worry about is that editors might consider it to be a POV fork. What would be really helpful is if editors could give their opinion below as to whether creating a seperate article where we would accomodate the following:
It would be helpful if the users suggested their opinions below (whether a new article should be created, the section merged back into Islam and anti-Semitism, or the section be merged in some other article). Bless sins 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It is clear from the title that that would be irrelevant to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Other editors your comments would be appreciated:
Please stop removing the referenced information indicating that the verses refer to Jews, as this is against policy. Not only do the references show that the verses refer to Jews, but Muslim sources agree. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop re-inserting the various Qur'an verse referring to Jews as apes; this isn't an article about the Qur'an per se, but an article about accusations of anti-Semitism, and the links to the Qur'an are quite good enough. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
At the end of the day , this is where the argument stands.
Statement: "A number of verses in the Qur'an refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs".
Sources:
Disputed: This argument is disputed by statements from Islamic scholars and experts on theology (according to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb)
Statement: The Quran says ( [
Quran
7:164[
Quran
7:165[
Quran
7:166)
Sources:
Disputed: No serious scholar disputes this statement. Absolutely none. Please re-examine your position(s). Bless sins 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The article deals with "Islam and Anti-semetism". For material to not constitute original research here, it must be based on sources that speak of anti-semetism directly. Yes, it's true that Jews have suffered persecution under certain Muslim regimes, however their treatment was not particularly worse than that of other non-muslims minorities of their time. As such, while the regimes in question can (and should) be accused of "muslim supremacy", to label it 'anti-semetism' is incorrect. It's original research when the editor labels an act or statement 'anti-semetism' though his own judgement, and without reference to a third party, published and credible, source. Amibidhrohi 04:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to keep these tags in place. This entire article is quite obviously set to support one single POV. It's full of original research. Much of it is made up of these editor's own bigotries and opinions, without sources to back them up (at this point, the question of sources being credible is a latter concern). I'm not going to bother trying to teach you what Original Research or POV are, you already know. To assume good faith on your part would be naive at this point. This article is nothing but right-wing Jewish propaganda aimed at smearing Islam. Amibidhrohi 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell does Islam claims mean? - If there is a claim in the qur'an, cite it. If its from a hadith, cite it. If its from a Muslim, Cite it. "Islam" can not "claim" anything, it's texts or proponents can though.-- Irishpunktom\ talk 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is in need of sourcing. All quotes need sourcing, all claims need citations. At the moment there are far too few. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 17:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, this article has been advertised to the members of Wikipedia Muslim Guild as an article that needs attention. Pecher Talk 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
God knows how much solicitation is done outside of wikipedia. ANyways, is askign others to come look at article wrong? Is it against wikipedia policy? Bless sins 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have few questions about this article? Please do not take me wrongly and I do not intend to attack on any group. I do not understand that why this article exist in the first place. If you believe that Islam is a religion against Jew then it is wrong. If you think that many/few Muslims are against Jew then so what? There are Christians against Muslims, Jews against Muslims (so on...) but one should never label the whole community. The article will not give any advantage to Jews; in fact the article itself is insult of Jews. See For example let say someone abuse Islam or my Prophet (PBUH). If I write that abuse at my user page then I am making more people read that abuse. Hence I am myself more abusing my religion. Also if a Muslim (with no information about this subject) read this article then he will say. Okay if my religion is against Jew then I will be against Jew too. Hence this article is spreading hate. This article is not good for Muslim or Jew or for wikipedia. It is against inter-faith harmony and friendship. We should give good examples instead of spending our energies in finding bad example. We should spread love instead of hate. I will also appose strickly any article like Jew and anti-Islam --- Faisal 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has been protected due to this edit war that is happening. When the page is ready to be unprotected, let me know. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This section struck me as odd. It says "When Muslim armies conquered nations, people of the Book (a category including Jews) were theoretically not forced to convert to Islam"... so, when Communists armies conquered nations, capitalists (a categoriy including Jews)... my point is, to be anti-Semitic the motivation has to be that they are Jewish. This is by no means to say that many practicing Muslims didn't discriminate against Jews because of Jewishness (anti-Semitism) or that dhimma isn't a type of discrimination. However, hating a Jew because he is old is not anti-Semitism... it's ageism. Dhimmi was (in most places) the same law as extended to Christians and in some places to Zoroastrians and Hindus. It is a tricky subject and it should be addressed but it needs to be addressed carefully. On the subject of the constitution of Medina, nothing mentioned about it is anti-Semitic. Muhammad favored the Muslims? well, while it may mean he's not a universalist trying to gain more rights for your group is not anti-Semitism. That is tribal dnynamics... I do think it would be much easier to create a "Islam and anti-paganism" article because (I should read up on this) their motivations are in some case specifically because their adversaries are pagan. gren グレン 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956: on 'The Koran and Anti-Semitism'. Reza1 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Iran has published holocaust-denial cartoons, and Ahmadinezhad has denied the holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel. Regarding anti-Semitism in Pakistan:
In 1996 Pakistani officials continued to condemn the Middle East peace process and to declare that Pakistan would not establish relations with Israel until Israel fully implemented UN resolutions.
The media in Pakistan have provided extensive coverage of the political and personal career of the cricket star Imran Khan. Since Khan's marriage in 1996 to Jemima Goldsmith, daughter of a British industrialist and politician, Sir James Goldsmith, Khan was accused of acting as an agent of the "Jewish lobby." Jemima Khan publicly denied that her parents were Jewish. An Egyptian newpaper distributed in Pakistan accused Khan of receiving large sums of money for his election campaign from the "Jewish lobby." Following complaints from Khan, the deputy editor of the newspaper retracted the story and published an apology.
Since India established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, the Pakistani media have repeatedly referred to the “Zionist threat on our borders,” and occasionally combine both anti-Zionist and antisemitic rhetoric. This is particularly common in the Islamist press, but also occurs in mainstream publications.
Should this be entitled under a new section called "Institutional antisemitism (or antisemitism in the media) in the Muslim world" or what? Netaji 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2001/01/05/stories/040555ra.htm
The Markaz, an Ahle Hadith organisation of Wahabi orientation, was initially very close to Saudi Arabia, but seems to have developed differences with it because of its proximity to Osama and of its contention that even Saudi Arabia does not have an ideal Islamic society. Its criticism of the stationing of the US and other Western troops in Saudi Arabia also contributed to this. It describes the Hindus and Jews, in that order, as the main enemies of Islam and India and Israel as the main enemies of Pakistan. Its Amir, Prof Saeed, is a strong opponent of Western-style democracy.
Markaz is the political wing of Lashkar-e-Toiba Shiva's Trident 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Indian Jewish community has recently suffered from anti-Semitism from Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, who have declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies of Pakistan
Now where does it state that Indian Jewish community has come under attack from the LeT? Omerlives 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba have also expressed anti-Semitic views. Their propaganda arm has declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies ofPakistan.
inaccurate part: no where have they declared Indian jews to be enemies of Islam but their declaration was for Jewish folks in general.
Superflous part: the bits about hindus and india. This is about antisemitism, emanating from some quarters in the muslim world not hate about other non muslim groups in general. Read the Alqaeda part which too has had variosu declarations aganinst Jewish people as well as West and Christians. Again, the article is restricted to antisemitism. Omerlives 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to let people know that Arabs are Semites as well. They speak Arabic, which is a branch of Hebrew, which is a Semetic language. So when people say that Arabs are Anti-Semetic, it means that Arabs are self haters, which doesnt make sense. Arabs and Muslims do not hate the Jews, as they are told in the Quran to respect all religions. The Jews, as well as the Christians, are referred to as "The People of the Book," and Muslims share a close relationship to them. For exampe, Muslims are allowed to eat their meat.
Unfortunately, the view on Islam has become a negative one, where these "terrorists" use the name of Islam and God to justify what they are doing to innocent civilians. People need to be aware that Arabs and Muslims do not think that way at all. After all, who in the world doesnt want peace. NOte the above was left by Nalalami
Anti-Semitic means anti-Jew. It doesn't matter if their languages are considered part of the same family. As for saying that they don't hate Jews, that is quite frankly untrue. Anti-Semitism is everywhere, I mean everywhere in the Muslim world, and the Qu'Ran states very clearly, over and over, that Muslims should take over the world. This isn't biased. This is the truth. User:Unnoticed
For once, please do not jump and claim all ownership to the term 'Semitic', it is a historical fact that Arabs are semitic, [refer to A history of Saracens/Arabs]. The title of this article therefore is incorrect, in that it refutes itself. An Arab cannot be anti-semitic (by definition). Arab-Israel contentions are a different topic, entirely.
PS. It cannot be stressed enough, and is vigorously ignored, but while writing for a global audience, PLEASE leave your biases at home. It will serve none of us.
I happened to read on this site (wikipedia) that the negative form of the adjective semitic (i.e. anti-semitic) is almost always used as a misnomer to mean "anti-Jewish" specifically. Further discussion on the issue of the true meaning of "semitic" and "anti-semitic" would be really pointless. Nontheless, the way the adjective is commonly used unfortunately continues to exclude other semites and there seems to be no attempt to correct this so that the (possibly) percieved disregard for the importance of other (non-Jewish) semites is no longer implicit in the real meaning of the word. Please correct me if I am wrong.
By the way, quoting from wikipedia again, "The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile")." Bardylis 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I tottally agree with this artical, I am sorry if some of you are mad about that fact, but I think it is the truth
This is probably the most important Islamic quote regarding Jews that needs to be mentioned; “You will battle the Jews until one of them will hide behind a rock. (The rock) will say: ‘O ‘Abdullaah (Worshiping slave of Allaah)! Behind me hides a Jew come and slay him.’” [ [25]] This is from the Hadeeth Chaldean 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
More Agreement!
Far from exagerated, adding to the facts, there are many more instances of historic repression of Jews by Muslims in the way of expulsions and massacres. This discussion is being dominated by Muslims who wish to drown out any criticism of themselves - their religion, while piling up their own against their perceived enemies. The Atlas of Jewish History - find it - lists centuries of Arab and Islamic oppression against Jews throughout the Middle-East and North Africa. There were at least two events every century. Even Spain was not as wonderful a utopia as some modern apologists wish to make it seem. If anything, Muslims were quicker to profit from collaboration with Jews, until some small event or even rumor would set off a killing frenzy that always seemed to finish with the Jewish population, what remained of it, being driven away, while their property and wealth was confiscated. At least in Europe, policy was made clear, but some region(s) of Europe were always safe enough for Jews to survive. In Europe, despite the repetitions of persecution, the Ashkenazi Jews contributed greatly to many communities and survived to be the largest of all world Jewish populations. And remember that in the late 19th century, even the German Kaiser remarked upon his visit, how wasted the region of Palestine was by the Muslim Arabs and Ottomans. It was the Jews who drained the swamps, defeated malaria and devloped land that could be farmed. This modern epic of Islamic rage against the West is caused more by envy and embarassment than any historical or present wrongdoing or even present American Foriegn Policy. We are dealing with entire peoples who would rather die than admit that they are wrong and have done wrong. These ridiculous arguments against what I see as the very spare history of anti-Jewish acts by Arabs and Muslims on this Wikipedia article will persist until Wikipedia cowtows to the pressure and the espouses the modern myth that Muslims were kind and Jews flourished among them until 1948 and the "despicable" act of the U.N. in recognizing a long needed correction of history in cooperating to give World Jewry back the nation European Rome robbed them of and the debt the entire World owed the Jews. Recall that these kind Islamic Arab nations drove their Jewish populations out as soon as they lost the 1948 war against the newly establish nation of Israel. Yet these same people daily decry prejudice in their Western host nations. Keep this article and expand it! Far too short.
Considering the vast majority of this article deals with Muslims, either in specifics or in general, and has very little on the actual religion of Islam, I have been bold enough to move it to a more appropriate title. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
To begin such an article with the quote "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. [1] is POV. We already discussed this elsewhere. I suspect that this quote is taken out of context. Also, let's try to introduce some structure to this amorphous text. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 12:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We all know very well that the Qur'an contains many contradictory verses about Jews and Christians (the article now gives a cursory treatment to this issue). Hopefully, editors will not attempt to insert verses like "There is no compulsion in religion" (see the article's title). Beit Or 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless a paragraph is not tied to Anti-semtism by the author it shouldn't be included in anti-semitism articles. -- Aminz 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
They should write it at least once at the beginning, shouldn't they? Or they should wait till the last paragraph and then say, the antisemitism ideas was too new!!-- Aminz 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article (and, presumably, other articles too) contains many links to a collection of English translations of Muslim texts. While the texts themselves are obviously not copyrighted, their English translations most certainly are. Thus, this site looks like one huge copyvio to which we should never link. Beit Or 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This article uses quotes from Gerber, and Lewis to describe the interpretation of the Quranic verses describing the Jews. The fact is that only a Muslim scholar, with appropriate education in Islamic Law and Quranic studies can interpret the Quranic verses to mean any thing. That does not mean that Quranic verses can't be quoted. It only means that those who are not (Islamic) scholars can't say "the quran says such and such". Thus there are portion of the section the "Jews in the Quran" for which better references must be found or they must be deleted. 74.12.13.44 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am only asking since these scholars are used as sources in the section "Jews in the Quran". Bless sins 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Reponse here:
Other very biased statements in this article:
"They refused to accept Muhammad's teachings, and eventually he fought them, defeated them, and most of them were killed"
" The traditional biographies of Muhammad describe the expulsion of the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir from Medina, the massacre of Banu Qurayza, and Muhammad's attack on the Jews of Khaybar. The rabbis of Medina are singled out as "men whose malice and enmity was aimed at the Apostle of God [i.e., Muhammad]". "
These statements MUST be taken in context. That is, they must show that these actions of muslims were in response to Jews attempting to assasinate Muahmmad, and (in case of Banu Qurayza), the Jews attempted to attack the Muslims they were at peace with. Bless sins 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The tags are supposed to specify the issue as accurately as possible. All the tags are created by us. Should you state a policy requiring the tag to go, it can be removed. -- Aminz 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
H.S. I didn't lose that. I really don't wish to bring this issue to RfC. It won't be good for any of us and I don't have any personal problem with any particular editor. I am really trying to discuss this on the talk pages. -- Aminz 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated in the Antisemitism talk page, some scholars such as Cahen don't believe there was any antisemitism, while others argue there was indeed some little antisemitism. For example, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion has only one sentence to say about Islam as far as I remember and that sentence is: "In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." Claude Cahen in Dhimmi article when touching the Antisemitism states: "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism". According to S. D. Goitein (the source which Humus Sapiens used when Johnson used it but removed it when I used it), writes: "For Islam, see the concise, up-to-date, and authorative article "Dhimma" by Claude Cahen in EI, which registers also the relevant material."
If the article wants to be summerized in one or two sentences, it should be the summary of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion or that of Cahen. Mark Cohen also quotes "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism"
Another point is usage of Encyclopaedia Judaica I stated my concerns about the way it was quoted in Antisemitism talk page. Aside from these points, any quote from this source should be attributed to it. I am not yet convinced that this source should be considered like Academic Encyclopedias on Judaism or on the other hand something like Catholic Encyclopedia or Jewish Encyclopedia. There are other problems with the way the source is presented which at the moment is not my main concern. -- Aminz 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All the sources I've used are notable and academic. Claude Cahen, Bernard Lewis, The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism, etc etc -- Aminz 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference to the Encyclopedia Judaica in this article, but it does not specify where in the encyclopedia this quote is. Please add this to the reference.-- Sefringle 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any response to this Beit Or?? Also, I'm removing long-standing unsourced material. Bless sins 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please justify your reversions here: Bless sins 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In so doing, you have changed the meaning of the referenced text, apparently without even checking the sources. Beit Or 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made some edits putting the conflicts with the three tribes in context, please discuss on talk beofre reverting. Bless sins 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
BeitOr, you have totally misprepresented sources on the description of the events with the Banu Qaynuqa. You removed the part of about Muhammad's negotiations, and also the part about a quarrel. Bless sins 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with presenting Muslim POV and the sentence makes this clear. -- Aminz 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a breath of fresh air to see an article on Islam that isn't full of weasel words, and doesn't preface every black mark on Islam with justification or finger pointing at other groups. Arrow740 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The {{totallydisputed}} tag is displayed at the beginning of this article. What is being disputed?-- Sefringle 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The main discussion can be found on the Antisemitism talk page actually. -- Aminz 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Intro says "and whether it is more or less common than amongst people of other religions" but I cannot find the discussion about this in the main text. Equally I wonder whether we should include whether Islam is more "anti" toward Judaism than toward any other religion? -- BozMo talk 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam.
In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness: it was projected as the sole Western effort at recolonization within Islamic sphere. This perception has triggered intese antipathy for Zionism and its Jewish supporters, often viewed as indistinguishable, and has resulted in the revival of harshly negative imagery spawned in the altogether different sphere of medieval Christendom. Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience. Once again, these themes have proven flexible, readily transferable from milieu to milieu.
Beit Or, please state your objections. The diff in question is [33]. -- Aminz 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, why this article should start with a section on "Jewish people in the Qur'an" and "Jewish people in the Muslim tradition". These have nothing to do with Antisemitism. The Yahud article in EoI is about Yahud. Lewis in his *book* discusses this. That's a book. But in all scholarly articles on this topic, such a section doesn't appear. The only article that gives a little bit details (and in passing) is the one in Judica Encyclopedia. -- Aminz 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, that "from theological perspective" is what the source says and seems to me to say that Muhammad criticized them because he thought they should do so according to their scripture. Without that, one might think Muhammad got angry at them and attacked them on other grounds. -- Aminz 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Response to #5 in statement made by Proabivouac on 04:16, 2 February 2007, "This sentence is completely ridiculous. Jesus' was a Jew who criticized other Jews; Muhammad criticized the Jews. " Jesus was only a Jew in the sense that he was born into an Israelite family. Muhammad doesn't criticize the Jewish race or ethnic group, rather the Jews who converted to Islam are praised by the Quran. Muhammad criticizes the Jews on thier actions and beliefs, the same way Jesus criticizes Jews. Bless sins 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: my edit on 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) and others has not been addressed. --
Aminz
23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged the article for this. I haven't been involved with the article and wouldn't know how best to word the lead myself, but it needs a sentence with the title phrase, or perhaps just the title words, in bold, ideally starting "Islam and antisemitism is...". WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. Thanks. Itsmejudith 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Who exactly is Gerber? What exactly is his full name and what are his qualifications?-- Sefringle 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or please answer the following question (I would really appreciate it): what is that makes Gerber a scholar on the Quran, and its interpretation as according to the various schools of thoughts? Bless sins 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be thick, but I really can't see that the removal of a series of links is vandalism. In my book vandalism is blanking a whole page with "nah nah nah nah nah poo-poo". And then we still assume good faith and inform the editor kindly that their "test" has been reverted. Articles don't have to have external links at all, so it is not seriously damaging the encyclopedia to remove them. And in this case, all the links are to articles and websites making strong political points. Take for example one sourced to Haaretz. No problem with Haaretz as a reliable source, however the link is not to news but an op-ed piece. How were these links chosen and why? Sure, it is a point that needs to be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Itsmejudith 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but Beit Or, I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my question above ( here) Bless sins 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put words into my mouth. All the links can go as far as I'm concerned, the Ramadan interview with the others. Any that editors consider to contain notable facts or viewpoints should be cited in the article. Itsmejudith 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody explain why this tag is placed here.-- Sefringle 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Because it is not directly relevant to antisemitism. Please show me one scholarly article on antisemitism which discusses this in this much detail. Many parts of section is based on Yahud article in Encyclopedia of Islam which is talking about Yahud. -- Aminz 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God. In certain aspects, Muhammad utilized the Bible in a manner similar to that of the Christian theologians, since he found in it the announcement of his own coming, but he also used the New Testament in the same way. As a result, Jews and Christians, although "infidels," are both regarded by the Koran as "Peoples of the Book," possessing Scriptures.
Since no other suggestions for sorting the lead have been forthcoming, may I suggest the following:
The question of whether there is antisemitism in Islam or among Muslims has been discussed in relation to various aspects of Islamic tradition and the practice of Muslims, including:
- the history of early Islam and the relationship of Muhammad to Arab tribes that practised forms of Judaism;
- the way that Jewish minorities were treated in medieval Islamic states; and
- attitudes and practices of modern Muslims and governments of countries with Muslim majorities.
NB that I'm only putting this forward to get a discussion going. I don't think it's a particularly good lead. It'll probably please no-one but it does make a start on reflecting the current contents of the article. Itsmejudith 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, why do you say this is not relevant? Could you spell it out please because I really don't see why it wouldn't be. Itsmejudith 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re this diff [35], as explained above it should be sourced to the author and the type of attack should be specified and further should be put into its context. -- Aminz 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I took this out because it tries to say that Islamic fundamentalism are true followers of the Qur'an. Any group of Muslims believe they are following what the Qur'an really says, so that's POV and unreferenced. The sentence is also not adding any information to the article. We already know that the Qur'an is the holy book of Muslims. -- Aminz 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If there are (relevent) scholars who say something, it would possibly merit inclusion into the article. But since when do school books represent Muslim beliefs? Unless this literature circulates the "department of religion" at Saudi universities, or other religious institutions, it says nothing about Islam and Muslims.
In addition, it needs to be justified that the source actually says that this curriculum is antiSemitic because such and such. Bless sins 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, you must show how the Hezbollah quote, as well as Saudi textbooks, are representative of the belief of the Muslim World. If they aren't, then they must be given extremely little space, considering the extremly little people (out of 1.2 billion Muslims) they represent. Bless sins 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Basic Law of Government of the Saudi Kingdom adopted in 1992 declared that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a) [1].
Also, these are clearly comments as to the Koran. They are not, in contrast, statements as to secular policy.
The quotes, brought together, support the comments now added to the article by a Professor of Islam that Moslems are taught anti-semitic interpretations of the Qu'ran.
As to your other points, please point us to specific Wiki policy that supports your notions that: 1) the source must identify the comment as anti-semitic -- rather than "res ipsa loquitur"; 2) quotes by Palestineans (because they are small in number - a comment I view as belittling, to be quite honest ... they may be too small in number to be important to you, but if you read Arabic or Western press I believe you will see that others have a different view), Hezbollah, or Saudi government-approved textbooks that invoke the Qu'ran are not representative enough to appear hear. Surely, you do not think that all should appropriately be set forth here is a statistically significant sampling of the entire Moslem world, or statements by Imams or professors of Islam. If you do, please point to the Wiki policy that supports that sentiment. Tx. -- Epeefleche 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition, responding to your lone comment, the references in the article to what is being taught in Saudi schools relates precisely to Islam. It is not as though the Kingdom is advancing a secular view. The Kingdom is specifically advancing an interpretation of the Qu'ran. An interpretation of the Qu'ran, communicated to the children of the country by a country that is the seat of Islam and which has adopted Islamic law as its governing law, is not only appropriate for inclusion, it is I would suggest far more notable than a lone comment by a scholar or imam might be, hidden away in some dusty book, perhaps read by no one. Again, I see no Wiki support for your approach either. -- Epeefleche 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is not "seat of Islam". Infact the writers of the textbook are not even Islamic scholars (if u disagree, please prove it otherwise). What an ordinary (wo)man who happens to be a Muslim writes, has no bearing on Muslim belief. I suggest you look at WP:RS. It is clear from wiki policy that a three year old girl who says "Jews are apes and pigs is written in the Koran" is not a relaible source. Bless sins 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's my argument. In order for you to include something in this article it must be,
1. An allegation of antiSemitism [per relevency].
2. An allegation against Islam, Quran, or Muslims in general [per relevency].
3. The one making the allegation must be a reliable source in area they are making the allegation [37].
4. Due weight should be given to the allegation and the subject concerned [38].
Bless sins 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You still have not responded to most of my above comments. Responding to your above suggestion, though, my thoughts are as follows.
1 & 2. I think that it suffices for something to be patently anti-semitic. I do not see any need in such circumstances for there to be an allegation of antisemitism. Massacres, comments that Jews are pigs or apes, etc. speak for themselves. If you have a different view, let me know where in Wiki policy it comes from.
3. You might want to take a look at Wiki policy vis-a-vis your thoughts on reliable sources. In any event, I do not think that we have to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams. I think it quite appropriate of course to quote those people. But I think it quite proper for there to be references here to statements made by Hamas, Egyptian and Saudi authorities, and -- because it is broadcast by the Saudi government to Moslems worldwide -- yes, a 3-year-old girl, as standing for the proposition that an on-its-face antisemitic interpretation of the Qu'ran has been delivered by the authorities and those in power in the Arab world to the Moslem population, who have at times learned this from a very early age.
4. I am not sure that I follow this last point. -- Epeefleche 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Per WP:OR, you can't declare some specific act to be antiSemitism, just as I can't declare something to be Islamophobia. And yes, each act must be judged independently, not all murders of Jews would be considered antiSemitism. Per wp:or provide your sources.
2.It has to talk about Islam, or Muslims in general. That should be obvious as the page is called "Islam and antiSmeitism". Also, it has to be notable enough to be included. For example, some XYZ Muslim down my street does NOT qualify as notable, unless there many reliable sources that report on him.
3. "...to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams." I didn't sya that. But we can't get scholars who no expertise on Islam to comment. They just don't know enough about the religion to comment on it. Also, note I have never seen a 3 year old scholar. Also, it is rare to find a 3-year old notable enough to have/his beliefs published, and regarded as representative of 1.2 billion people worldwide. Again, per WP:OR, if you can find a source that suggets that this unnamed 3 year old is representative of Muslims, then you can include her. But its up to a scholar to make that call, not you or I.
4. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, then why not just look at [39]? Bascially it means you can't overblow the view of a minority group (like Hamas, Hezbollah), in an article talking about mainstream people (i.e. Muslims). Bless sins 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A review of the section of the book written by Gerber says:
So, one of us should read Gerber for checking the factual accuracy of all statements in this article. -- Aminz 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If these are written using sources which are not talking about antisemitism, they should be moved to their own articles. -- Aminz 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Also the sections on "Hamas", "Saudi Arabia" and "Egpyt" should go under a section in Modern times. I can also see undue weight given to one or two scholars or organizations. -- Aminz 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As to your first, I am not sure what you are referring to.
-- Epeefleche 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This section is clearly relevant and belongs in this article. I am going to restore it.--
Sefringle
04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, can you show me an academic article on Antisemitism which goes into this detail. Also, you can not use Yahud article in EoI since it is not writing about antisemitism. -- Aminz 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For example, why Proa removed that bit about Christian theologians? He said it is not relevant but it is more relevant than what is already presentend in the article. -- Aminz 07:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
only if Islamic antisemitism is the main focus of the article.
Secondly, all of the above references are of course "talking about antisemitism," as you put it. That is clear on its face. So it is not as though they are not relevant.
Thirdly, your definition of "original research" is not the common one.
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
Please note that that list does not suggest, as you have, that it constitutes original research if one stiches together facts as has been done here.
See [40] -- Epeefleche 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S.--one last point. You write: "The Qur'an doesn't call for anything, the commentators do. The Qur'an doesn't talk, the commentators make it talk. ... According to many scholars, Antisemitism wasn't among Muslims in classical times because there was no particular discriminative persecution against the Jews." That seems to me to be somewhat at odds with the quotations from the Qu'ran that have been presented (and, at times, deleted) in the article. I guess that it makes the point as to why it is important to keep those direct quotations in the article, as well as the interpretations of it that the masses hear, whether from mufti or from Saudi TV broadcast to Moslems around the world.-- Epeefleche 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)