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 4 | Archive 5 |
It is unclear why there is a balance tag in the 'quran says Jews are apes and pigs' section. I am going to remove it if I can't figure out why it is there.-- Sefringle 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In its current version, this article looks actually unbalanced. When I have seen the title, i.e. Islam and antisemitism, I would have thought that the article would not limit itself to speaking only about the anti-Semitic (or better said, anti-Jewish) aspect of the religion or about the anti-Jewish views of some of those who are Muslims. Because in its current feature, the article tends to demonstrate that Islam is antisemitic (in the meaning of anti-Jewish) by essence. I am however convinced that this is not the case and that there must surely be possible to find at least as much Islamic authors, commentators or scholars who condemn antisemitism. I am far from being a specialist of Islam, but I am convinced that among Wikipedia’s contributors one should easily find a lot of people who know Islam well enough to add references to ancient or new Muslim authors and scholars who condemn antisemitism. This would make a more balanced article. -- Lebob-BE 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please show the reliable source that considers the statements made in the following sections to be representative of the Quran and an act of antiSemitism.
1.1.1 Hamas
1.1.2 Sicily
1.1.3 Egypt
Also, I'm removing the Saudi sermons for sake of avoiding redundancy. Bless sins 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The section in question links to reliable sources specifically mentioning antisemitism. A lot of original research defending Islam against the charge has been inserted there, we could delete that if you like. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, you argued "section in question links to reliable sources specifically mentioning antisemitism".
The Hamas quote is sourced to "The Hamas monthly publication Falastin Al-Muslima (London), September 1996, series of articles by Ibrahim Al-'Ali, pp. 54-55.". Please point out where the literature in question specifically mentions "antisemitism". Also, please show the "reliable source" that connects this to the Quran. Bless sins 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I tried seraching for the word "antisemitism" on the follwoing source, but came up with no results. can you point out the page where the word "antisemitism" is used. Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (pdf), Freedom House, May 2006, pp.24-25. Bless sins 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you guys see how the quotes presented from Hamas or others are in the context of antisemitism? -- Aminz 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<reset>WP:NOR asks us to support synthesis with sources in relation to the topic of the article. The topic of the article here is 1) Islam and 2) antisemitism. Qutb and Maududi's analysis is clearly in relation to Islam. However, here in the article is has been alleged that certain verses of the quran are antisemitic. Thus 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are definetly relevent to the topic of the artilce, if not they shouldn't be mentioned here. So each of my sources is relevent to 1) Islam and to 2) verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 (allegedly anti-Semitic). Also I never said 'removing original research "borders on vandalism"'. That's clearly a false accusation. I said that removing sourced content borders on vandalism. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Also please don't make Uncivil comments like "your dogged determination to ignore policy". "Dogged" is not a respectful term (especially due to its derivation from the word dog), and your conclusion that I'm "determined" to ignore wikipolicy is quite false. Bless sins 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Well, let's examine your sources: Notes # 12 ("Mutation of Israelites"), 13 ("Hizbullah Al-Manar..."), 15 ("Based on Koranic Verses...") link to sources that don't even mention anti-semitism. Why haven't you removed those sources?
The only source that mentions anti-semitism is " "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism" by Jamie Glazov. But Glazov is a scholar on Soviet history, and hardly one on Islam. The only scholar cited in the article is Khaleel Mohammed (K Mohammed). But there are two problems: first do we even know that K Mohammed is bieng fairly represented by frontpagemag, an unreliable source?
Secondly, this is what K Mohammed says about the Quran:
The Qur'an respects certain groups of Jews, and seems to think certain other groups (of Jews) are not observing Judaism.
Q2:47, Q2:62, Q3:33, 5:20: those verses certainly do respect the Jews, in fact, telling them that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. The Qur’an refers to the Torah as a book of light (Q5:44)--and the foregoing are only a few examples of the respect of Judaism and its Scripture.
5:60: This is in polemic, simply addressed to those who were making fun of Islamic beliefs. The story of God transforming those with whom he is angry is a well-known motif in midrashic work: check tractate sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud wherein some of those who attempted to build the tower of Babel were transformed into apes.
one of Muhammad's wives was Jewish--safiyyah bint Huyayy--and if Muslims are to believe the Jews are descended from apes and swine, then Muhammad was married to a descendant of such creatures. Of course this is unacceptable to Muslim sensibilities.
It is surprising that none of this is in the article. Perhaps because all of the above quotes do not demonize Islam. Bless sins 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
ALso, think of it this way: Consider a source alleges that Genesis 3:11 promotes racism towards Gentiles. Now this allegation is so ridiculous that mainstream scholars of Jewish scriptures haven't heard of it, and thus not bothered to write anything specific in relation to this topic. So how exactly does wikipedia show that Genesis 3:11 is not promoting racism? Inevitably, we'll have to quote something that is in relation to Genesis 3:11, but not in relation to racism.
The same applies to the Quran. IF some maniac was to claim that Quran 4:12 commands muslims to invade the planet Mars, you will not find a single scholar that talk about Islam and the invasion of planet Mars. The only way to refute that claim is to show how Muslims really interpret Quran 4:12. Hope this helps. Bless sins 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The external links from this article should be those that link to meaningful material on Islam and antiSemitism.
Neither of the two links belong. Bless sins 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The tag {{ citecheck}} has been added to many sections of this article. What exactly is disputed int these sections?-- Sefringle 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
<reset>That doesn't change the fact that you need a reliable source making the allegation of antiSemitism. WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources says, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Thus you can only describe the poll not interpret it.
"This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Please don't try to interpret the poll. Rather find reliable, published secondary sources for your claims. Bless sins 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, Unfavorable attitudes toward jews is antisemitism is purely your own definition, and most of scholars don't agree with. This comment from User:Gren is also relevant. [8] -- Aminz 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources states that "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. To label 99% of a country's population as "antisemetic" is indeed a "politically charged issue". On top of that your source doesn't even use the word "antisemetism".
WP:ATT#Wikipedia_does_not_publish_original_research_or_original_thought says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." (emphasis already present in WP, not added by me). Thus you must present sources that "explicitly" state the accusation of antisemitism. Bless sins 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an old trick, to fill up sections of an article that offend you with tags that disfigure it, so that it's hard to read. I've removed the nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is it POV? -- Aminz 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, Cohen is writing not his own view but that of most scholars. Beit Or says that only Cohen thinks most scholars believe in that. What is your argument for removing that. [12] Do you also say that the Oxford Handbook of Judaism is mistaken? -- Aminz 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Qur'an section was discussed above, you might want to explain the undiscussed arguments you had when you restored it. -- Aminz 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Norman Stillman also agrees with the view of most scholars: "Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books." -- Aminz 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, the Quran section has been discussed and argued before. You can check out the archives on talk. The section Aminz is reverting to is infact the longstanding one. If you wish to re-open the dispute, please read the previous discussion (in archives) first. Bless sins 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I find it interesting that you (Jayjg) removed my comments from your talk page. [13] It's really disappointing that you choose to ignore legitimate criticism of your actions, rather than respond to it. You should appreciate it if someone brings to your attention the errors you have committed. Bless sins 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a broad scholarly consensus that what we refer to as "antisemitism" (coined in the 19th-century) was born and bred in Europe, and only very recently imported to the Arab world.
This article reads like a propaganda leaflet.-- G-Dett 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I find this edit [14] troubling. The opposition to this material strikes me as bizarre. Scholars of all political persuasions – from Noam Chomsky to Daniel Pipes – agree with this basic bit of history. It's like we're going over the heads of scholars to write an agit-prop leaflet; it's borderline bananas to have the article skirt this crucial matter of consensus and launch right into tendentious statements about the Koran, presented as uncontroversial fact. Come on, guys. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.-- G-Dett 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the geocities link. Are the frontpage.com links appropriate? Thanks, -- Tom 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
After Beit Or restored a bunch of unsourced material [18], HumusSapiens was good enough to source some of it. [19] The conference paper by Leah Kinberg linked to by Humus is interesting indeed, [20] since we seem to be plagiarizing heavily from it.-- G-Dett 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Humus and Beit Or, I don't think either of you is quite getting it. You can't just copy and paste from a source, even if you've given the source you're lifting from in a footnote. It is an intellectual property issue. You can paraphrase with attributions, and if one of you wants to take the time to do that with this junk, then I'll let the results of that stay (whatever of it passes muster with WP:NOR, that is). But this entire paragraph –
As Dhimmis, they had to pay a poll tax, jizya, and the Koran (9:29) insisted that the tax would be paid while they were humiliated. Also, Jews were prohibited from worship in temples higher than mosques, no new temples could be built, they were required to ride a donkey and not a horse, and men were required to sit sidesaddle, like a woman. Dhimmi women were not allowed to wear costly clothing. Dhimmis could not adopt Muslim names and were restricted in government service. Muslims legally married free dhimmi women, but dhimmi men could not marry Muslim women nor own a Muslim slave
– is lifted from someone's conference paper and pasted in here without quotation marks. That's plagiarism, period; learn what it means. -- G-Dett 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not insinuating that there's been plagiarism; I'm pointing out instances of plagiarism that will be self-evident to any literate person versed in basic standards of attribution. Yes, you found the refs, which makes all the more absurd your failure to recognize how they'd been plagiarized by one of our editors.
"Three and a half years old girl" is the solecism that gives the game away, Humus. "Three-and-a-half-year-old girl" is what the original author should have written, but didn't, and what the Wikipedian who added this junk would have written if he were paraphrasing instead of plagiarizing.
And finally, please stop dodging the OR-issue. Who's the reliable source for the analysis here about how "the impact of these teachings was demonstrated" etc.? If analysis of this kind is not sourced it's OR. Plagiarism and original research are usually mutually exclusive, but some wizard here has managed to artfully blend them into a new form of drivel.-- G-Dett 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are users removing the lead, sourced to Mark Cohen, and completely relevent to the topic?
Also, can a user provide the full quote for the following text: "In 888, in Palermo, Sicily, the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) issued an order that Jews wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and affix the same image to their homes. For Christians, the image was that of a pig." Bless sins 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is doomed unless there is an agreement on the definition of Antisemitism. Seeing how people who question the definition of antisemitism are labeled antisemites, this is going to be tricky. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
But let's be honest, if the book had something preposterous in it, the Oxford University would have requested to be disassociated from the book. But they haven't. I guess it would be a sort of implicit association with the university. But at the very least, it represents the opinions of "Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen and David Sorkin" (per the oup link you gave). -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide the exact quote of the source concerned here, as requested in the article. Bless sins 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I added many edits that were not related to the current dispute. Please be more careful in reverting next time.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"The relationship between Islam and antisemitism has various dimensions. Some writers have perceived antisemitism to Islam and antisemitism considers antisemitism among Muslims; in the Qu'ran; in Islamic history; and in the modern world. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are important issues in contemporary Middle East politics and the relations of the state of Israel with its neighbors in the region."
That (what you reverted to) doesn't even make sense. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, to say that Cohen writes a meaningless tautology is a bad excuse to remove him(like the other excuse that Mark Cohen is mistaken that most scholars believe). He is not. We can quote him word by word, and in any case you shouldn't have any problem with it. If it is so clear that he is writing a meaningless sentence, the reader will surely get it. -- Aminz 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
At the time of this writing, the last 12 edits to this article have been reverts [24]. Enough is enough. Talk here! Let's work together. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend reverting any edits done by Special:Contributions/72.88.165.163, he seems to be a wikistalker. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see this these quotes:
Mark Cohen: most scholars conclude that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")
"Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books."
Lewis: "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..."
Claude Cahen: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism."
Encyclopedia of religion in the Antisemitism article: "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. "
Isn't all these enough? -- Aminz 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is. But when I see 12 consecutive "revert" in the history, and not corresponding activity in the talk page, I thought it was something fishy.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Cohen (along with Lewis) is one of very few encyclopedic sources for this article. What's odd about the disputed material is that what's being so conspicuously cited to Cohen – that "Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century" – is actually a matter of scholarly consensus. -- G-Dett 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This would follow the format provided by Zionism and racism allegations, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, etc. etc.
Please discuss.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's two fundamental content policies. Please do not persist in inserting material that violates it; particularly material that "introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article". The topic of this article is "Islam and antisemitism". Please don't insert material that doesn't quote sources referring to "Islam and antisemitism". Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:NOR requires original research. I've asked the question here -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"A source that only mentions Islam xor Antisemitism should be fine, as long as it verifies a fact or argument. That's all. However, there may be a case where a source describes Islam, but does not take into account Antisemitism and is thus erroneous, although this is not always the case. Vice versa may happen as well. Gracenotes" Taken from here -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
here. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As a Muslim, I truthly believe we Muslim does not teached to discriminate other human being because of their race, color and genetic. I truthly believe Quran doesnt in anyway says that all the jews are sinner. they are those(the jews) that accept Islam, at the early history of Islam and according to Quran some jews against the teaching of Islam(we believe every prophet of Allah teach and believe in religion of Islam only) thats why the jews(the one that against the teaching of Islam) are mention in the Quran. so I dont think this article is not appropriate and Islam is no way teach the follower to be antisemite or what so ever, and please if and only the follower is antisemite it has what so ever linked to Islam, if so please merge to Muslim and antisemitism.-- Towaru 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm... I never thought about that. I agree that this article is biased and goes against WP:NPOV because it presupposes that Islam contains elements of antisemitism which may be discussed. It should be moved to Muslims and antisemitism, or Islam and antisemitism allegations. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with that statement, Sefringle. The Qur'an has statements that can be interpreted as antisemitic, but they can also be - and are - interpreted in other ways too. We should not be referring directly to the Qur'an, because it is a primary source, but instead reflecting what present-day scholars are saying. Not many of them think that Islam has any intrinsic relationship with antisemitism. It's the same for Christianity. Most writers point out the differences between the belief system of a religion and the actions of its followers are different times in the past. The titles of these articles are unsatisfactory as they lead into what social scientists call the "essentialist fallacy" - that there is a timeless Islam or timeless Christianity that will always be the same, cannot change. Followers of the religions may also fall into the same fallacy, but in fact the most thoughtful ones do not, and in any case the encyclopedia is pursuing enquiry, not belief. Itsmejudith 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, there is a differnce between Muslims and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism. The former can document non-Arab Muslims. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry, can we take web as a source for this? for example: http://www.jews-for-allah.org/ , i think i know what went wrong here, perhaps.-- Towaru 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not continue this fruitless discussion. A proposal to move this page elsewhere, somewhere, anywhere has already been made above and it didn't pass. Beit Or 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can "Panorama" in the BBC section be wikilinked to Panorama (TV series)? Thanks.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In its current incarnation, this article is one of the most sophomoric, bigoted, and badly written in all of Wikipedia's Middle-East-related articles, and that's saying something. Two major forms of overhaul are necessary. The first is to reframe the subject as a controversial one, which obviously it is. As it stands now, it presents highly contentious claims as fact. It reads, moreover, like a mediocre high-school student's attempt at essay writing:
Islam and antisemitism considers antisemitism among Muslims; in the Qu'ran; in Islamic history; and in the modern world. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are important issues in contemporary Middle East politics and the relations of the state of Israel with its neighbors in the region.
Instead of defining its topic and sketching its purview, it tells you what it "considers" and then tells you it's "important." Very amateurish stuff.
The next thing that will need to be overhauled is the use of sources. Some are solid, but there is a good deal of rank propaganda here presented as if it were encyclopedic. It is one thing to quote lobby groups like MEMRI to give balance, or to limn the parameters of a debate, but this article relies upon them as primary sources for factual claims. Last month I cleaned up some of the plagiarism that infected the page, but a good deal remains to be done. Finally, what decent source material is here will need to be sifted through more intelligently than has been done. Much of it hasn't been "read" in any serious sense of the word; rather it's just been mined for lurid quotations. On the whole, despite having a serious subject worthy of serious treatment, this article reads like the breathless pamphlet-prose of some basement-operated hate group; it is about as far from encyclopedic in tone and content as is imaginable.-- G-Dett 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the last resort. Can someone please initiate it. -- Aminz 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also refering to these parts:
Khaleel Mohammed writes that many verses [8] in the Quran respect Jews, and tell them that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. The Qur’an (5:54) also refers to the Torah as a "book of light". He further emphasizes that any attempt to demonize Jews has absolutely no basis in the Quran.[9]
Professor Ali S. Asani suggests that the Quran endorses the establishment of religiously and culturally plural societies and this endorsement has affected the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim lands throughout history. He cites the endorsement of pluralistic ethos to explain why violent forms of anti-Semitism generated in medieval and modern Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, never occurred in regions under Muslim rule.[10]The Qur'an states that Jews betrayed the teaching of their prophet Moses, and that if they were to uphold the teaching of Moses that they would be a saved nation.[citation needed]
How the quran "respects" jews is irrelevant.-- Sefringle 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As for Jerome Chanes what exactly is his scholarship, and how is he notable?-- Sefringle 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Khaleel Mohammed"'s opinions have been on this article for months (maybe even a year). Infact, Jayjg him/herself inserted him. The article that sites him is specifically about antisemitism (and its relation to the Quran). Finally, can you define "POV pushing" (by pointing to the relvent Wiki policy)? I think there is a lot that going on here. Bless sins 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to revert to the earlier section becasue these recent changes are way too overwhelming to discuss all at once, and because they are very one sided and POV. If you'd like to make changes, please discuss them one at a time first.-- Sefringle 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, we talked about this before. You think whatever kind of persecution of Jews is antisemitism and you don't accept that if a persecution is not specifically directed at Jews, it is not antisemitism. As such, you don't accept for example The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion when it says: "There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." There is no more point to discuss this if we can not agree on that point. I will probably request for a mediation. That seems to be the final resort. -- Aminz 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no point of arguing what is antisemitism, and what is not. If a reliable source says its antisemitism, it is, and if a reliable source says it isn't, then it isn't. If there is a contradiction, we present both sources and attribute them. Bless sins 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Sefringle, wikipedia does not limit the speed at which we can improve it/add content. Thus if I have added a large amount of content in a short time, I have not violated any rules. If you, however, see that some content is OR, or not sufficiently sourced, then please bring it up. But to revert me entirely is wrong. Bless sins 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Restore: "According to Mark Cohen in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized"). [1]" Reason: The only reliable source in the lead, and perhaps the most reliable source in the article. This also gives an overview of Muslim antisemitism in history, and where it really came from. Bless sins 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to include Cohen's statement in the header because he provides us with information as to when did antisemitism enter Islam, and what were the sources of this antisemitism. Bless sins 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Restore: "In response to allegations of antisemitism against the Quran, Khaleel Mohammed points out numerous verses of the Quran [2] that respect Jews. He also points out that the Qur'an entitles Jews to the kingdom of heaven, and calls the Torah a "book of light" ([ Quran 5:44). He further emphasizes that any attempt to demonize Jews has absolutely no basis in the Quran. [3]" Reason: Both Ye'or and Spencer are not reliable, there fore we can't use them as sources for anything. Mohammad, however, is a professor of religious studies at a university. Thus, he is reliable. Bless sins 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved the comments of Professor Ali S. Asani and Jerome Chanes back. Reason: They are not rebuttals to anything, but provide an overview of the relationship between Muslim scriptures and antisemitism. The other comments, which are more specific in nature, should be moved down. Bless sins 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Again, you are getting off topic. I really don't have any interest in your wife, or the way questions are asked.
I initially put forth an arugment that Chanes and Asani should mentioned initially, since they are not rebutting anyone, but providing a general relationship between the Quran and antisemitism. Please address this argument in a straightforward maner. Bless sins 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I made the trends section "alleged" because 1. WP:NOT#CBALL, and 2. nobody can predict the future and these seem to be one- scholar opinions.-- Sefringle 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F "any facts...must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." (the emphasis is added by WP, not me). You should also take a look at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.
There are many sources that may be OR, per the WP policy quoted above. Please show how the following sources are in relation to both "Islam" and "antisemitism". Make the response directly under the source. Bless sins 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (pdf), Freedom House, May 2006, pp.24-25.
2. "Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar Calls for Jihad and States Jews ‘are the Descendants of Apes and Pigs’", Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1217, Antisemitism Documentation Project, July 28, 2006. Accessed March 5, 2006.
<reset>"No, I'm done wasting time on this". If you edit on wikipedia, you will definetly have to spend time. You have refused to provide me with the author, his/her credentials etc. Because Al-Sattar is a living person, I'm removing the source per WP:BLP (as the author and reliability is unknown). Not to mention that it is OR as explained above. Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
3. PEW Globel Attitudes Report
4. Barzilay, I., Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): His Life, Works and Times, p. XXIV (1997)
5. Gilbert, Martin. Dearest Auntie Fori. The Story of the Jewish People. HarperCollins, 2002, pp. 179-182.
6. [41]
7. "Mutation of Israelites", Internet Sacred Text Archive. (retrieved May 3, 2006)
8. "Hizbullah Al-Manar TV’s Children's Claymation Special: Jews Turn Into Apes & Pigs, are Annihilated & Cast into the Sea",, Middle East Media Research Institute, December 16, 2005. (retrieved May 3, 2006)
9. Solnick, Aluma. "Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals", Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Report - No. 11, November 1, 2002. Accessed March 5, 2006.
10. Maimonides, ‘’Epistle to the Jews of Yemen”, translated in Stillman (1979), pp. 241–242
11. Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands,, 1979, pp. 59, 284.
12. Jews In The Koran And Early Islamic Traditions by Dr. Leah Kinberg. Lecture delivered in May 2003, Monash University, Melbourne
13. Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem. London. p. 51
14. Tom Gross, Living in a Bubble: The BBC’s very own Mideast foreign policy., National Review, June 18, 2004.
15. [42]
16. Jews In The Koran And Early Islamic Traditions by Dr. Leah Kinberg. Lecture delivered in May 2003, Monash University, Melbourne
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 4 | Archive 5 |
It is unclear why there is a balance tag in the 'quran says Jews are apes and pigs' section. I am going to remove it if I can't figure out why it is there.-- Sefringle 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In its current version, this article looks actually unbalanced. When I have seen the title, i.e. Islam and antisemitism, I would have thought that the article would not limit itself to speaking only about the anti-Semitic (or better said, anti-Jewish) aspect of the religion or about the anti-Jewish views of some of those who are Muslims. Because in its current feature, the article tends to demonstrate that Islam is antisemitic (in the meaning of anti-Jewish) by essence. I am however convinced that this is not the case and that there must surely be possible to find at least as much Islamic authors, commentators or scholars who condemn antisemitism. I am far from being a specialist of Islam, but I am convinced that among Wikipedia’s contributors one should easily find a lot of people who know Islam well enough to add references to ancient or new Muslim authors and scholars who condemn antisemitism. This would make a more balanced article. -- Lebob-BE 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please show the reliable source that considers the statements made in the following sections to be representative of the Quran and an act of antiSemitism.
1.1.1 Hamas
1.1.2 Sicily
1.1.3 Egypt
Also, I'm removing the Saudi sermons for sake of avoiding redundancy. Bless sins 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The section in question links to reliable sources specifically mentioning antisemitism. A lot of original research defending Islam against the charge has been inserted there, we could delete that if you like. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, you argued "section in question links to reliable sources specifically mentioning antisemitism".
The Hamas quote is sourced to "The Hamas monthly publication Falastin Al-Muslima (London), September 1996, series of articles by Ibrahim Al-'Ali, pp. 54-55.". Please point out where the literature in question specifically mentions "antisemitism". Also, please show the "reliable source" that connects this to the Quran. Bless sins 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I tried seraching for the word "antisemitism" on the follwoing source, but came up with no results. can you point out the page where the word "antisemitism" is used. Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (pdf), Freedom House, May 2006, pp.24-25. Bless sins 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you guys see how the quotes presented from Hamas or others are in the context of antisemitism? -- Aminz 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
<reset>WP:NOR asks us to support synthesis with sources in relation to the topic of the article. The topic of the article here is 1) Islam and 2) antisemitism. Qutb and Maududi's analysis is clearly in relation to Islam. However, here in the article is has been alleged that certain verses of the quran are antisemitic. Thus 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are definetly relevent to the topic of the artilce, if not they shouldn't be mentioned here. So each of my sources is relevent to 1) Islam and to 2) verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 (allegedly anti-Semitic). Also I never said 'removing original research "borders on vandalism"'. That's clearly a false accusation. I said that removing sourced content borders on vandalism. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Also please don't make Uncivil comments like "your dogged determination to ignore policy". "Dogged" is not a respectful term (especially due to its derivation from the word dog), and your conclusion that I'm "determined" to ignore wikipolicy is quite false. Bless sins 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Well, let's examine your sources: Notes # 12 ("Mutation of Israelites"), 13 ("Hizbullah Al-Manar..."), 15 ("Based on Koranic Verses...") link to sources that don't even mention anti-semitism. Why haven't you removed those sources?
The only source that mentions anti-semitism is " "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism" by Jamie Glazov. But Glazov is a scholar on Soviet history, and hardly one on Islam. The only scholar cited in the article is Khaleel Mohammed (K Mohammed). But there are two problems: first do we even know that K Mohammed is bieng fairly represented by frontpagemag, an unreliable source?
Secondly, this is what K Mohammed says about the Quran:
The Qur'an respects certain groups of Jews, and seems to think certain other groups (of Jews) are not observing Judaism.
Q2:47, Q2:62, Q3:33, 5:20: those verses certainly do respect the Jews, in fact, telling them that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. The Qur’an refers to the Torah as a book of light (Q5:44)--and the foregoing are only a few examples of the respect of Judaism and its Scripture.
5:60: This is in polemic, simply addressed to those who were making fun of Islamic beliefs. The story of God transforming those with whom he is angry is a well-known motif in midrashic work: check tractate sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud wherein some of those who attempted to build the tower of Babel were transformed into apes.
one of Muhammad's wives was Jewish--safiyyah bint Huyayy--and if Muslims are to believe the Jews are descended from apes and swine, then Muhammad was married to a descendant of such creatures. Of course this is unacceptable to Muslim sensibilities.
It is surprising that none of this is in the article. Perhaps because all of the above quotes do not demonize Islam. Bless sins 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
ALso, think of it this way: Consider a source alleges that Genesis 3:11 promotes racism towards Gentiles. Now this allegation is so ridiculous that mainstream scholars of Jewish scriptures haven't heard of it, and thus not bothered to write anything specific in relation to this topic. So how exactly does wikipedia show that Genesis 3:11 is not promoting racism? Inevitably, we'll have to quote something that is in relation to Genesis 3:11, but not in relation to racism.
The same applies to the Quran. IF some maniac was to claim that Quran 4:12 commands muslims to invade the planet Mars, you will not find a single scholar that talk about Islam and the invasion of planet Mars. The only way to refute that claim is to show how Muslims really interpret Quran 4:12. Hope this helps. Bless sins 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The external links from this article should be those that link to meaningful material on Islam and antiSemitism.
Neither of the two links belong. Bless sins 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The tag {{ citecheck}} has been added to many sections of this article. What exactly is disputed int these sections?-- Sefringle 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
<reset>That doesn't change the fact that you need a reliable source making the allegation of antiSemitism. WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources says, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Thus you can only describe the poll not interpret it.
"This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Please don't try to interpret the poll. Rather find reliable, published secondary sources for your claims. Bless sins 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, Unfavorable attitudes toward jews is antisemitism is purely your own definition, and most of scholars don't agree with. This comment from User:Gren is also relevant. [8] -- Aminz 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources states that "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. To label 99% of a country's population as "antisemetic" is indeed a "politically charged issue". On top of that your source doesn't even use the word "antisemetism".
WP:ATT#Wikipedia_does_not_publish_original_research_or_original_thought says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." (emphasis already present in WP, not added by me). Thus you must present sources that "explicitly" state the accusation of antisemitism. Bless sins 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an old trick, to fill up sections of an article that offend you with tags that disfigure it, so that it's hard to read. I've removed the nonsense. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is it POV? -- Aminz 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, Cohen is writing not his own view but that of most scholars. Beit Or says that only Cohen thinks most scholars believe in that. What is your argument for removing that. [12] Do you also say that the Oxford Handbook of Judaism is mistaken? -- Aminz 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Qur'an section was discussed above, you might want to explain the undiscussed arguments you had when you restored it. -- Aminz 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Norman Stillman also agrees with the view of most scholars: "Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books." -- Aminz 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, the Quran section has been discussed and argued before. You can check out the archives on talk. The section Aminz is reverting to is infact the longstanding one. If you wish to re-open the dispute, please read the previous discussion (in archives) first. Bless sins 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I find it interesting that you (Jayjg) removed my comments from your talk page. [13] It's really disappointing that you choose to ignore legitimate criticism of your actions, rather than respond to it. You should appreciate it if someone brings to your attention the errors you have committed. Bless sins 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a broad scholarly consensus that what we refer to as "antisemitism" (coined in the 19th-century) was born and bred in Europe, and only very recently imported to the Arab world.
This article reads like a propaganda leaflet.-- G-Dett 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I find this edit [14] troubling. The opposition to this material strikes me as bizarre. Scholars of all political persuasions – from Noam Chomsky to Daniel Pipes – agree with this basic bit of history. It's like we're going over the heads of scholars to write an agit-prop leaflet; it's borderline bananas to have the article skirt this crucial matter of consensus and launch right into tendentious statements about the Koran, presented as uncontroversial fact. Come on, guys. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.-- G-Dett 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the geocities link. Are the frontpage.com links appropriate? Thanks, -- Tom 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
After Beit Or restored a bunch of unsourced material [18], HumusSapiens was good enough to source some of it. [19] The conference paper by Leah Kinberg linked to by Humus is interesting indeed, [20] since we seem to be plagiarizing heavily from it.-- G-Dett 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Humus and Beit Or, I don't think either of you is quite getting it. You can't just copy and paste from a source, even if you've given the source you're lifting from in a footnote. It is an intellectual property issue. You can paraphrase with attributions, and if one of you wants to take the time to do that with this junk, then I'll let the results of that stay (whatever of it passes muster with WP:NOR, that is). But this entire paragraph –
As Dhimmis, they had to pay a poll tax, jizya, and the Koran (9:29) insisted that the tax would be paid while they were humiliated. Also, Jews were prohibited from worship in temples higher than mosques, no new temples could be built, they were required to ride a donkey and not a horse, and men were required to sit sidesaddle, like a woman. Dhimmi women were not allowed to wear costly clothing. Dhimmis could not adopt Muslim names and were restricted in government service. Muslims legally married free dhimmi women, but dhimmi men could not marry Muslim women nor own a Muslim slave
– is lifted from someone's conference paper and pasted in here without quotation marks. That's plagiarism, period; learn what it means. -- G-Dett 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not insinuating that there's been plagiarism; I'm pointing out instances of plagiarism that will be self-evident to any literate person versed in basic standards of attribution. Yes, you found the refs, which makes all the more absurd your failure to recognize how they'd been plagiarized by one of our editors.
"Three and a half years old girl" is the solecism that gives the game away, Humus. "Three-and-a-half-year-old girl" is what the original author should have written, but didn't, and what the Wikipedian who added this junk would have written if he were paraphrasing instead of plagiarizing.
And finally, please stop dodging the OR-issue. Who's the reliable source for the analysis here about how "the impact of these teachings was demonstrated" etc.? If analysis of this kind is not sourced it's OR. Plagiarism and original research are usually mutually exclusive, but some wizard here has managed to artfully blend them into a new form of drivel.-- G-Dett 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are users removing the lead, sourced to Mark Cohen, and completely relevent to the topic?
Also, can a user provide the full quote for the following text: "In 888, in Palermo, Sicily, the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) issued an order that Jews wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and affix the same image to their homes. For Christians, the image was that of a pig." Bless sins 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is doomed unless there is an agreement on the definition of Antisemitism. Seeing how people who question the definition of antisemitism are labeled antisemites, this is going to be tricky. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
But let's be honest, if the book had something preposterous in it, the Oxford University would have requested to be disassociated from the book. But they haven't. I guess it would be a sort of implicit association with the university. But at the very least, it represents the opinions of "Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen and David Sorkin" (per the oup link you gave). -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide the exact quote of the source concerned here, as requested in the article. Bless sins 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I added many edits that were not related to the current dispute. Please be more careful in reverting next time.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"The relationship between Islam and antisemitism has various dimensions. Some writers have perceived antisemitism to Islam and antisemitism considers antisemitism among Muslims; in the Qu'ran; in Islamic history; and in the modern world. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are important issues in contemporary Middle East politics and the relations of the state of Israel with its neighbors in the region."
That (what you reverted to) doesn't even make sense. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, to say that Cohen writes a meaningless tautology is a bad excuse to remove him(like the other excuse that Mark Cohen is mistaken that most scholars believe). He is not. We can quote him word by word, and in any case you shouldn't have any problem with it. If it is so clear that he is writing a meaningless sentence, the reader will surely get it. -- Aminz 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
At the time of this writing, the last 12 edits to this article have been reverts [24]. Enough is enough. Talk here! Let's work together. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend reverting any edits done by Special:Contributions/72.88.165.163, he seems to be a wikistalker. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see this these quotes:
Mark Cohen: most scholars conclude that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")
"Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books."
Lewis: "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..."
Claude Cahen: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism."
Encyclopedia of religion in the Antisemitism article: "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. "
Isn't all these enough? -- Aminz 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is. But when I see 12 consecutive "revert" in the history, and not corresponding activity in the talk page, I thought it was something fishy.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Cohen (along with Lewis) is one of very few encyclopedic sources for this article. What's odd about the disputed material is that what's being so conspicuously cited to Cohen – that "Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century" – is actually a matter of scholarly consensus. -- G-Dett 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This would follow the format provided by Zionism and racism allegations, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, etc. etc.
Please discuss.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's two fundamental content policies. Please do not persist in inserting material that violates it; particularly material that "introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article". The topic of this article is "Islam and antisemitism". Please don't insert material that doesn't quote sources referring to "Islam and antisemitism". Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:NOR requires original research. I've asked the question here -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"A source that only mentions Islam xor Antisemitism should be fine, as long as it verifies a fact or argument. That's all. However, there may be a case where a source describes Islam, but does not take into account Antisemitism and is thus erroneous, although this is not always the case. Vice versa may happen as well. Gracenotes" Taken from here -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
here. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As a Muslim, I truthly believe we Muslim does not teached to discriminate other human being because of their race, color and genetic. I truthly believe Quran doesnt in anyway says that all the jews are sinner. they are those(the jews) that accept Islam, at the early history of Islam and according to Quran some jews against the teaching of Islam(we believe every prophet of Allah teach and believe in religion of Islam only) thats why the jews(the one that against the teaching of Islam) are mention in the Quran. so I dont think this article is not appropriate and Islam is no way teach the follower to be antisemite or what so ever, and please if and only the follower is antisemite it has what so ever linked to Islam, if so please merge to Muslim and antisemitism.-- Towaru 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm... I never thought about that. I agree that this article is biased and goes against WP:NPOV because it presupposes that Islam contains elements of antisemitism which may be discussed. It should be moved to Muslims and antisemitism, or Islam and antisemitism allegations. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with that statement, Sefringle. The Qur'an has statements that can be interpreted as antisemitic, but they can also be - and are - interpreted in other ways too. We should not be referring directly to the Qur'an, because it is a primary source, but instead reflecting what present-day scholars are saying. Not many of them think that Islam has any intrinsic relationship with antisemitism. It's the same for Christianity. Most writers point out the differences between the belief system of a religion and the actions of its followers are different times in the past. The titles of these articles are unsatisfactory as they lead into what social scientists call the "essentialist fallacy" - that there is a timeless Islam or timeless Christianity that will always be the same, cannot change. Followers of the religions may also fall into the same fallacy, but in fact the most thoughtful ones do not, and in any case the encyclopedia is pursuing enquiry, not belief. Itsmejudith 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, there is a differnce between Muslims and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism. The former can document non-Arab Muslims. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry, can we take web as a source for this? for example: http://www.jews-for-allah.org/ , i think i know what went wrong here, perhaps.-- Towaru 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not continue this fruitless discussion. A proposal to move this page elsewhere, somewhere, anywhere has already been made above and it didn't pass. Beit Or 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can "Panorama" in the BBC section be wikilinked to Panorama (TV series)? Thanks.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In its current incarnation, this article is one of the most sophomoric, bigoted, and badly written in all of Wikipedia's Middle-East-related articles, and that's saying something. Two major forms of overhaul are necessary. The first is to reframe the subject as a controversial one, which obviously it is. As it stands now, it presents highly contentious claims as fact. It reads, moreover, like a mediocre high-school student's attempt at essay writing:
Islam and antisemitism considers antisemitism among Muslims; in the Qu'ran; in Islamic history; and in the modern world. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are important issues in contemporary Middle East politics and the relations of the state of Israel with its neighbors in the region.
Instead of defining its topic and sketching its purview, it tells you what it "considers" and then tells you it's "important." Very amateurish stuff.
The next thing that will need to be overhauled is the use of sources. Some are solid, but there is a good deal of rank propaganda here presented as if it were encyclopedic. It is one thing to quote lobby groups like MEMRI to give balance, or to limn the parameters of a debate, but this article relies upon them as primary sources for factual claims. Last month I cleaned up some of the plagiarism that infected the page, but a good deal remains to be done. Finally, what decent source material is here will need to be sifted through more intelligently than has been done. Much of it hasn't been "read" in any serious sense of the word; rather it's just been mined for lurid quotations. On the whole, despite having a serious subject worthy of serious treatment, this article reads like the breathless pamphlet-prose of some basement-operated hate group; it is about as far from encyclopedic in tone and content as is imaginable.-- G-Dett 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the last resort. Can someone please initiate it. -- Aminz 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also refering to these parts:
Khaleel Mohammed writes that many verses [8] in the Quran respect Jews, and tell them that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. The Qur’an (5:54) also refers to the Torah as a "book of light". He further emphasizes that any attempt to demonize Jews has absolutely no basis in the Quran.[9]
Professor Ali S. Asani suggests that the Quran endorses the establishment of religiously and culturally plural societies and this endorsement has affected the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim lands throughout history. He cites the endorsement of pluralistic ethos to explain why violent forms of anti-Semitism generated in medieval and modern Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, never occurred in regions under Muslim rule.[10]The Qur'an states that Jews betrayed the teaching of their prophet Moses, and that if they were to uphold the teaching of Moses that they would be a saved nation.[citation needed]
How the quran "respects" jews is irrelevant.-- Sefringle 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As for Jerome Chanes what exactly is his scholarship, and how is he notable?-- Sefringle 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Khaleel Mohammed"'s opinions have been on this article for months (maybe even a year). Infact, Jayjg him/herself inserted him. The article that sites him is specifically about antisemitism (and its relation to the Quran). Finally, can you define "POV pushing" (by pointing to the relvent Wiki policy)? I think there is a lot that going on here. Bless sins 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to revert to the earlier section becasue these recent changes are way too overwhelming to discuss all at once, and because they are very one sided and POV. If you'd like to make changes, please discuss them one at a time first.-- Sefringle 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, we talked about this before. You think whatever kind of persecution of Jews is antisemitism and you don't accept that if a persecution is not specifically directed at Jews, it is not antisemitism. As such, you don't accept for example The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion when it says: "There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." There is no more point to discuss this if we can not agree on that point. I will probably request for a mediation. That seems to be the final resort. -- Aminz 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no point of arguing what is antisemitism, and what is not. If a reliable source says its antisemitism, it is, and if a reliable source says it isn't, then it isn't. If there is a contradiction, we present both sources and attribute them. Bless sins 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Sefringle, wikipedia does not limit the speed at which we can improve it/add content. Thus if I have added a large amount of content in a short time, I have not violated any rules. If you, however, see that some content is OR, or not sufficiently sourced, then please bring it up. But to revert me entirely is wrong. Bless sins 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Restore: "According to Mark Cohen in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized"). [1]" Reason: The only reliable source in the lead, and perhaps the most reliable source in the article. This also gives an overview of Muslim antisemitism in history, and where it really came from. Bless sins 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to include Cohen's statement in the header because he provides us with information as to when did antisemitism enter Islam, and what were the sources of this antisemitism. Bless sins 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Restore: "In response to allegations of antisemitism against the Quran, Khaleel Mohammed points out numerous verses of the Quran [2] that respect Jews. He also points out that the Qur'an entitles Jews to the kingdom of heaven, and calls the Torah a "book of light" ([ Quran 5:44). He further emphasizes that any attempt to demonize Jews has absolutely no basis in the Quran. [3]" Reason: Both Ye'or and Spencer are not reliable, there fore we can't use them as sources for anything. Mohammad, however, is a professor of religious studies at a university. Thus, he is reliable. Bless sins 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved the comments of Professor Ali S. Asani and Jerome Chanes back. Reason: They are not rebuttals to anything, but provide an overview of the relationship between Muslim scriptures and antisemitism. The other comments, which are more specific in nature, should be moved down. Bless sins 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Again, you are getting off topic. I really don't have any interest in your wife, or the way questions are asked.
I initially put forth an arugment that Chanes and Asani should mentioned initially, since they are not rebutting anyone, but providing a general relationship between the Quran and antisemitism. Please address this argument in a straightforward maner. Bless sins 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I made the trends section "alleged" because 1. WP:NOT#CBALL, and 2. nobody can predict the future and these seem to be one- scholar opinions.-- Sefringle 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F "any facts...must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." (the emphasis is added by WP, not me). You should also take a look at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.
There are many sources that may be OR, per the WP policy quoted above. Please show how the following sources are in relation to both "Islam" and "antisemitism". Make the response directly under the source. Bless sins 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (pdf), Freedom House, May 2006, pp.24-25.
2. "Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar Calls for Jihad and States Jews ‘are the Descendants of Apes and Pigs’", Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1217, Antisemitism Documentation Project, July 28, 2006. Accessed March 5, 2006.
<reset>"No, I'm done wasting time on this". If you edit on wikipedia, you will definetly have to spend time. You have refused to provide me with the author, his/her credentials etc. Because Al-Sattar is a living person, I'm removing the source per WP:BLP (as the author and reliability is unknown). Not to mention that it is OR as explained above. Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
3. PEW Globel Attitudes Report
4. Barzilay, I., Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): His Life, Works and Times, p. XXIV (1997)
5. Gilbert, Martin. Dearest Auntie Fori. The Story of the Jewish People. HarperCollins, 2002, pp. 179-182.
6. [41]
7. "Mutation of Israelites", Internet Sacred Text Archive. (retrieved May 3, 2006)
8. "Hizbullah Al-Manar TV’s Children's Claymation Special: Jews Turn Into Apes & Pigs, are Annihilated & Cast into the Sea",, Middle East Media Research Institute, December 16, 2005. (retrieved May 3, 2006)
9. Solnick, Aluma. "Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals", Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Report - No. 11, November 1, 2002. Accessed March 5, 2006.
10. Maimonides, ‘’Epistle to the Jews of Yemen”, translated in Stillman (1979), pp. 241–242
11. Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands,, 1979, pp. 59, 284.
12. Jews In The Koran And Early Islamic Traditions by Dr. Leah Kinberg. Lecture delivered in May 2003, Monash University, Melbourne
13. Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem. London. p. 51
14. Tom Gross, Living in a Bubble: The BBC’s very own Mideast foreign policy., National Review, June 18, 2004.
15. [42]
16. Jews In The Koran And Early Islamic Traditions by Dr. Leah Kinberg. Lecture delivered in May 2003, Monash University, Melbourne