![]() | 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 | → | Archive 9 |
Where do you start with this article? Bits added here and there, very little of it from truly scholarly sources, no attempt to reflect the range of academic views. Now accusations flying of WP:POINT and goodness knows what else.
So to go back to the beginning, which appears to be the Qur'an. Firstly it is absolutely essential to make it clear that the interpretation of a text hundreds of years old in a language that is no longer anyone's first language is not going to be straightforward.
It is appropriate, I think, to list all the verses that have been interpreted at some time as attacking or disparaging Jews (and/or Christians). This should lead straight into a thorough and balanced discussion of the different interpretations that have been made.
This doesn't currently happen, and instead we leap straight to the year 888, when the Aghlabids, who may have had some kind of control of some or all of Sicily (but still disputed full control with the Byzantines) issued a proclamation. I don't know whether the book referred to is an academic one or not - it is with a very good publisher, so let us assume it is, but I am concerned that the point is not directly related to the topic of the book, and also that this event does not appear in the Yellow badge or Timeline of antisemitism articles. It may be a good point to add, but will need proper checking.
Then another leap into the 21st century. I personally am in no doubt that Saudi textbooks have referred to the Qur'anic texts that mention apes and pigs - however, those texts are still open to interpretation. It is a live controversy and notable. Irrefutable sourcing can be made to the UK news media, because there was a recent case of an Islamic school in London using textbooks of Saudi origin that had such references. I saw the head teacher interviewed on the BBC. She did not deny that there were such references in the textbooks, but she did say that there were different interpretations of the Qur'anic verses, also that those chapters in the book had not been used in the school. Itsmejudith 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That Muslims hold that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion is cutting off a motivation for antisemitism (i.e. the "Jews killed Jesus" statements...) rather than one provoking antisemitism. -- Aminz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a lead should start "this article is about". It should ideally start "Islam and antisemitism" is ... . Itsmejudith 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, there are some important scholars, including Bernard Lewis, no less, who have specifically discussed the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Not only can their views be reflected here, they should be reflected here, and in fact the whole article should be based around these serious views of serious scholars. Of course it is a POV in the sense that anything that anyone says is a POV. Note that these scholars do not argue that it is impossible for Muslims to be antisemitic, they are simply saying that there is no intrinsic relationship between the religion Islam and the ideology of antisemitism. Although there are some contrary views that may also be discussed if they can be attributed to scholars of the issue, this is in fact the scholarly consensus and the article has to make the fact plain. Itsmejudith 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, can you please explain your recent edits?-- Sefringle 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a bit of a game going on with Bless sins' arguments, above. I'll summarize them so we don't have to keep going round and round.
All challenges are made solely for the purpose of removing any source which asserts a relationship between Islam and antisemitism. At some point the game playing must stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg:
Bless sins 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, in this edit, [2], "what various arab leaders say today belongs in "modern muslim antisemitsm"" While I can see your point, I must disagree, as this material is quite clearly about the Qur'anic claim that Jews were transformed into monkeys and pigs. What upsets me is that you make no mention of, or attempt to justify, your rearrangement of the subsections; one is forced to compare versions side by side to see what was done. Please take greater care in the future to ensure that your edit summaries address all of the significant changes you have made. Proabivouac 02:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Erel Shalit writes: We need to bear to listen to the accusations from the Arab world, however outrageous and anti-Semitic many of them are, for instance...
This section needs serious help. It appears at first glance that the claims of Lewis and Chanes have been intermingled and potentially corrupted, and at times its not clear what is being said. I'd like to verify who is saying what, and clean up some of the language. Proabivouac 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Violates WP:Due weight
The section is supposed to be about antisemitism inside the Qur'anic literature(as a subsection of "Qur'an"). That for example during tensions between the two community, the phrase was used by Muslims in abusive language, or that a certain Muslim dynasty in North Africa set up certain regulations are indirectly related. They deserve a brief mention in a few sentences (with the details coming in relevant sections). Currently, we have dedicated more than 1 page to it writing about what Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar stated on Syrian TV or what 'Abd Al-Sattar on November 8, 2005 said. By 2000+ quotes I mean quotes coming from year 2000 and afterwards.
I have summerized everything in the following which could be added to the "Attack" section:
"There are a number of other verses that refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs (e.g. see [ Quran 5:60,[ Quran 2:65, and [ Quran 7:166). [1] According to some commentators the transformation literary happened while others understand it metaphorically (e.g. as something that happened to Jewish hearts). [2] Johannes J. G. Jansen states that the qur'anic verse [ Quran 5:60 qualifies the Jews of Medina with the epithets apes and pigs. Many modern preachers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century. [3] [4] According to Lewis, the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims and the conventional epithets for Jews are apes, and for Christians are pigs. [5]"
The details can go to the relevant sections. Any objections?-- Aminz 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Norman Stillman, Antisemitism in Muslim world increased greatly for more than two decades following 1948 but "peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s." [6] Johannes Jansen believes that antisemitism will have no future in the Arab world in the long run. In his view, like other imports from the Western World, antisemitism is unable to establish itself in the private lives of Muslims. [7] Bernard Lewis writes that the expression of antisemitism at the personal level in the Muslim world is still quite rare. [8]
I am removing this section for the following reasons:
-- Sefringle 04:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
First this is a very one sided section; it is pretty clear the purpose is to push the POV that somehow Islam is not antisemitic. I know what NPOV states; it means views should be represented neutrally. And in response to wikipedia is not censored, there is wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda. (See WP:SOAP) There is no denying that all these scholars are saying the exact same thing; that antisemitism will not last in the muslim world. This is very one sided, and a clear POV pushing soapbox.
-- Sefringle 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to Sefringle: If saying that Islam is not antisemitic is POV, then saying Islam is antisemitic is also POV. I don't know why you want to block out references that doesn't agree with your POV, given that you know wikipedia is not a soapbox for your POV.
1. Ofcourse it contains valid information. It show how antisemitism changed throughout the 20th century, and what its future will be.
2. Such "speculations" are made all the time. In any case, I have already proved that wikipedia supports my edits because my edits are "properly referenced" (to RS). I have even shown you how WP:NOT#CBALL supports my edits. That you continue to deny that fact is just as absurd as your claim that my edits were "unsourced".
3. I never said Lewis' POV is somehow more accurate, nor did anything to imply that. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do. 17:35, 21 May 2007
4. Can you show how PEW global attitudes project, which you have not removed, is at all a reliable source on antisemitism? Bless sins 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No, there is nothing valid in the first quote. It is only a one sided POV that only repeats one of the views.
2. No. You haven't. See point 3 of WP:NOT#CBALL. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." This is clearly speculation and future history. Nobody will know the future of antisemitsim, likely nobody will know the future of any other belief. 3. read through my last comment again. You seem to have missed the point.
4.PEW is reliable because it provides surveys which have been reported in many reliable sources including highly notable newspapers, and other scholarly sourcs, and their statistics are regularly quoted. Second, it reports in this case on present attitudes of muslims, it is not speculating, and it clearly discusses antisemitism. -- Sefringle 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
1. That's just your POV. The first quote provides the reader with how antisemitism has varied from 1948 to the 1970s and to the 1980s and 1990s.
2. WP:NOT#CBALL says "It is appropriate to report discussion ... provided that discussion is properly referenced." Since my discussion is properly referenced, my edits are completely appropriate. This is the second time I have repeated this.
3. What was your point? State it in a clear and straightforward manner.
4.Please provide evidence as to how PEW is a relaible source on antisemitism. In other words, what qualifies the author(s) to comment on antisemitism. Please show evidence of the particular report you are talking about being quoted by "scholarly sourcs". Bless sins 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 04:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1. What my intentions were when I added this, is not your concerns. The fact is that it provides the user with useful information. You can't deny that.
2. The full quote is ". It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis added) Jansen is predicting that a "development will occur", namely antisemitism will diminish in the Muslim world.
3. But if Lewis' quote is about trends, why should he be mentioned "many times" "outside of the trends section"?
4.I don't need you to bombard me with crude links. Your first link ( New York Times [11]) is just about when and where PEW has been mentioned. Can you provide me with sources that specifically mentions the relevent (i.e. the one about "Anti-Jewish sentiment") PEW survey that we are talking about? Bless sins 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No, there is nothing useful in this quote. Only lopsided POV, especially in this section.
2. No, Jansen is predicting future additudes. Here is the definition of development: [12] Notice that none of the definitions of development include changing attitudes.
3. He is mentioned many times outside of the trends section, not that he should be. Don't quote me out of context. What I said is the other places where he is mentioned are more appropiate places for his opinion. It is unduely defensively to mention this again.
4.Doesn't matter, it is a reliable source for statistics, or do you deny that. But since you asked for a specific site, here's one [13].-- Sefringle 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
1. I could say the same thing about PEW global attitudes...
2. "Development" means, amongst other things: [14]
3. His comments are about trends. Thus they should be in the trends section.
4. Does matter. In any case the link provided suffices PEW to be a reliable source. Bless sins 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. You could, but you would be lying. It is obvious how statistics are relevant. Opinions, however are not statistics.
2. Ok, now you are just misinterpriting the definition. Muslims becomming less antisemitic is not progress. It is changing attitudes. See the example "child development; economic development" Neither of these are examples of changing attitudes.
3.He comments not on trends, but just an opinion which has already been expressed many times throughout the article already. -- Sefringle 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, I can also accuse you of "lying" (your word not mine). Btw, Stillman's "opinion" is not an opinion, but a statement on trends.
2. No I'm not. I even used the definition/link you provided. Progress is progress, whether social ecnomic or moral. Also, antisemitism is a "significant" ideology (or whatever you want to call it), thus it fits the second definition as well.
3. His comment is about trends, the levels of expression of antisemitism in the Muslim world can be considered trends. the only differnce between him and PEW is that (a) he doesn't use percentages, and (b) he is a lot more reliable source. Bless sins 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No that's false. Someone can't say "antisemitism in the Muslim world decreased for more than two decades following 1948" wihtout contradicting Norman Stillman. 1.On the other hand, some can interview a different group of people (after all PEW didn't even interview 1% of the Pakistani population) and arrive at the conclusion that only 45% of Pakistanis have views unfavorable towards Jews. Now that is an opinion.
2. Social progress is definetly a type of progress. Also the death of an ideology in 20% of humands is a "significant consequence".
3. Ofcourse it is related to trends. Just as PEW says "anti-Jeiwsh sentiment is endomic in the Muslim world" he says "expression of antisemitism at a personal level is quite rare". Same thing, except he give a different POV. And NPOV requires us to present his POV alongside others. Bless sins 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Why do you insist that Stillman's arguments are based on "rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty"? He is a reliable scholar. In any case in wikipedia, we don't question relaible sources, we report them.
2.I have shown you how Jansen's statements are appropriate. That you choose to call my argumetns "misinterpretation" without justification is a different matter.
3. Every thing you don't like, you label as "opinion", and everything you like you label as "fact". Please tell me the difference between Lewis' statements and PEW's statements. Bless sins 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1. We are clearly attributing the statement to Stillman, Jansen, Lewis etc. That's a fact. The only person questioning Stillman is you. Bring forth a scholar that questions Stillman. Even then we would be forced to present Stillman, as NPOV requires us to present all published POVs.
2. And I showed you in response to that how my interpretation was justified. The decline of antisemitism is both "progress" and a "consequence" as the definition of "development" suggests. You have so far not brought forth any concrete arguments against that.
3.Lewis' statement is based on his research. Infact Lewis is considered far more reliable thatn PEW in the field of Islam and antisemitism. Lewis' statement is just as much an "opinion" as PEW's statement that "anti-jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world". Bless sins 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm not stating POVs as facts. I'm stating that "Norman Stillman states..." Please understand the difference. It is a fact that Norman Stillman writes what I claim he writes. You can verify the sources yourself.
2. I posted something on WP:NOT, Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Crystal_Ball. Though I got one response, it clearly suggests that Jansen's statements do not violate WP:NOT#CBALL. Sefringle, we have argued enough about this already.
3. You know that Lewis is more relaible than PEW. In any case th section is/was titled "Trends" not "Statistics". Thus Lewis' opinion belong there. Bless sins 12:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Change: Removing the following:
Muhammad is also known to have Jewish friends. [9] In 629, Muhammad married a Jewish woman called Safiyya. Professor Khaleel Muhammad points out that, because of this marriage, racist comments about Jews are unacceptable to Muslim sensibilities. [10] According to Poliakov, "the degree to which Muhammad shows his respect for each religion [Jews and Christians] is remarkable". [11]
Reason:This is being removed because it is irrelevant to Antisemitism.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide the full quote to prove that the arthor really is responding to antisemitism in Islam, and not just trying to show examples of tolerence within Islam?-- Sefringle 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said earlier, this article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism, not just the relationship between Islam and Jews as a whole. This doesn't prove any lack of prejudice nor isit even stated as a rebuddle. Thus it is not relevant.-- Sefringle 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. "Showing respect" does not mean like. Saladin and King Richard I of England respected each other. It would be improper to say they liked each other. Similar with many people who did battle with each other.-- Sefringle 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Change: Move "Judaism in Islamic theology" section to "tolerance for Jews" section. Also replacing "Modern scholars" with "According to Bernard Lewis[24] and Jerome Chanes"
Reason: This discusses Lewis' view that Jews are not antisemitic. Thus Lewis is saying that muslims are tolerant for Jews and thus cannot be antisemitic. Thus it is related to tolerence section. The origional title is very POV, so it is more relevant under the tolerence section. the name change is necessary, as nobody speaks for everyone.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The passage says that Muslims are not antisemitic. Thus it is saying that muslims respect jews. This a is simple definition.-- Sefringle 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is simple definition. Either you are tolerant or you are intolerent. Since they are arguing not intolerent, they are arguing tolerent.-- Sefringle 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Change: Moving Uri Rubin and Tahir Abbas section to tolerence section
Reason: It is more relevant to have all the similar views together. This discusses tolerence.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Change: restoring "Muslim beliefs that certain Jews were transformed into apes and pigs" section
Reason: Very relevant to this topic, part of the qur'an, pretty well sourced to secondary scholarly sources. It is not already covered in the attacks on Jews section, as that section mentions nothing about Jews being "apes and pigs."-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Change: keep the relevant quranic verses mentioned showing, outside of <ref></ref> system
"Reason:' make links to the verses easily avaliable to viewers. There is no reason to hide them.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I posted something on WP:CITE, the response was inadequate. Then I posted something on WP:MOSISLAM here. Only one person has responded. For what he/she says we should show the verses if there is only one, but if there are many verses (like Gerber quotes) the we should put them in "ref" tags. Bless sins 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Change:Seperate "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam" into "events" and "views"
Reason: The events are facts. The views, on the other hand are opinions, and thus can easily be disputed. They are just commentary on the events. They need to be seperated for easier reference and for clarification. It is also less POV to do things this way. The events need to be on the top, because that is the indisputed history, while opinions are not as important to the topic.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing:
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. [12] It is not known whether this was ever applied. There are reports of relatively frequent repetition of the ordinance in Sicily and North Africa. This has been both interpreted to mean that "it was not rigorously enforced - while the same has been adduced for the opposite." [13]
Reason: Verifcation failed. I got the book and the given pages (i.e. 24 and 33) don't mention anything about antisemitism. Furthermore the pages also don't mention anything about the Aghlabid dynasty forcing the Jews to wear a patch. The index does not have the words "Palermo" and "Aghlabid". All references to "Sicily" and "North African communities" in the index don't mention the above event. Furthermore, all of the dates I found in the book were from fifteenth century and later. The book doesn't seem to at all discuss what happened in the ninth century.
If you want the section restored, please provide the relevent quote below. Also, mention the relvent part (e.g. one, two) and chapter (e.g Yashar's Early Years in Candia"). Bless sins 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I created a section on literature in "Antisemitism in premodern Islam". In this section I have grouped togethor all examples of antisemitsm/lack of antisemitism.
I also created a section called "dhimmi and jizya".
Reason: It organizes the article better. Also, the section "Early Islam", "Spain", and "Later rule" inherited from Sefringle's section called "Events". Literature and dhimmi, however, are not "events" and thus I put them in thier own sections respectively. I really don't see how creating these sections pushes a particular POV. So I don't think you guys should be opposed to this. Bless sins 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing
According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil."
Restoring
According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism in Islam is non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history.
Reason: The first statement is attributed to Lewis' The New Anti-Semitism. But when he makes those statements, he doesn't make them in relation to Islam. Thus I'm removing that statement as it is irrelvent to Islam. Infact, Lewis states "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil."
Secondly, the statement I'm restoring is sourced to Lewis and he is clearly talking about both Islam and antisemitism. Bless sins 19:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil.
I don't think the following belongs in this article:
Lewis states that in contrast to Christian antisemitism, the attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims is not one of hate, fear, or envy, but rather simply contempt. This contempt is expressed in various ways, such as abundance of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. "The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur." The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets are apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians. Lewis continues with several examples of regulations which were symbolizing the inferiority that non-Muslims living under Muslim rule had to live with, such as different formulae of greeting when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims (both in conversations or correspondences), and forbidding Jews and Christians to choose names used by Muslims for their children by the Ottoman times. [14]
Reason: The only antisemitism that Lewis discusses on page 33 is Christian antisemitism. Although he refers to Muslim attitudes he refrains from saying any thing - positive or negative - about Mulims/Islam in relation to antisemitism. Also, Lewis' work is about Jews of Islam and not about Islam and antisemitism per se. Thus it can't easily be established that Lewis is talking about Islam and antisemitism. Unless, someone can show otherwise, I will remove this passage.
Bless sins
21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this removial is that you are removing sourced content, and removing the list of verses that say Jews are Apes and pigs. The verses need to be clear, meaning outside of the <ref></ref> system. Remove the duplicate information, but don't remove the sourced content or try to hide the content.-- Sefringle 03:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the full quran verse is both appropiate and necessary in this case. This is a very notable concept, and the full verse would be encyclopediac here.-- Sefringle 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg:
Mohammad suggests that these verses are a polemic, addressed to those who "who were making fun of Islamic beliefs". He further suggests that the source of these stories of transformation may be midrashic works (including the Talmud) and Jewish oral tradition. Further he argues that the verse does not sterotype all Jews but only those who violated Sabbath. [15]
Jerome Chanes writes that during the first seven or eight centuries of Muslim history antisemitic activity was very rare. [16] Pinson and Rosenblatt also suggests that antisemitism "of an all-embracing character" has been rare throughout the history of Islam. [17]
<reset>I never said Schweitzer and Perry are "attacking". They are saying that the Quran is making negative comments about the Jews. No, I don't like Lewis' views, I like Abbas' views, which I moved to the bottom. All the sources in this article are scholarly writing specifically on topic (those that aren't will be removed). While Lewis gives a balanced view, giving due wieght to btoh sides, Schweitzer and Perry make one sided comments. If you want to include Schweitzer and Perry in the LEAD, then I can include Chanes and Abbas too. How about that? In any case, yet again your reverts are unexplained and you remove a lot of sourced info. Bless sins 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, you are adding material that says "in a hadith," meaning some scholar says some hadith says "(information)." Please specify which hadith.-- Sefringle 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Any edit which removes Schweitzer and Perry from the lead on the Qur'an will be reverted without comment, regardless of any other edits included with it, until you actually get consensus for this attempted whitewash, which appears unlikely. Just letting you know so you won't be surprised, and I won't have to repeat myself. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, we have Tahir Abbas who says that the Qur'an speaks favourably of the Jews "in general". So, we can mention both views or remove both. Either one is fine with me. I can see several of your comments use the word "whitewash" when refering other edits made by other editors. To me, it applies to some of your edits(e.g. your move of " Mark Cohen quotes Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, a specialist in medieval European Jewish history, who cautioned that Maimonides' condemnation of Islam should be understood "in the context of the harsh persections of the twelfth century..." was a big whitewash). -- Aminz 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What's interesting is that you are cherry picking quotes from Schweitzer and Perry. The section of their book on Islam starts with "JEWS PROSPERED IN THE ENORMOUS ARAB EMPIRE" (the capitals are thiers not mine). Interesting isn't it? Bless sins 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me point oput a few flaws in your argument:
<reset>"You have to live with the consequences of your actions". Huh? What does that have to with anything? I asked you to justify your reverts, not give me a random proverb. Bless sins 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, in your recent edits you yourself are removing Schweitzer and Perry. According to your own rules I should revert you instantaneously. Bless sins 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is different from "Tolerance for Jews" section. The Qur'anic verses are divided into positive and negative ones and discussed in "Attacks on Jews" and "Tolerance for Jews" sections. This is a separate topic. -- Aminz 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, when we say scholars like "X" say something, we should present what they say. And Lewis can not be a Muslim aplogetic in this matter. I suggest you take his book from a library (or check books.google.com) and read pages 117-118. -- Aminz 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The article should not list random acts of discrimination and persecution against Jews with no reference to their historical context. -- Aminz 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where this material belongs to"Under Muslim rule the exilarchs enjoyed quasi-royal powers and great prestige..." Early Muslim rule or later one? -- Aminz 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You said that muslims are not antisemitic. Poliakov didn't say Muslims were never antisemitic. Thus it is origional research or irrelevant.-- Sefringle 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
<reset>The first review states "A scholarly but eminently readable tracing of the sources and recurring themes of anti-Semitism." Bless sins 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A positive description should proceed. Lewis provides the following quote in relation to Early Islam:
Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."
Rosenblatt and Esposito and F.E. Peters say similar statments. Rosenblatt for example says that Muhammad's struggle with the neighbor Jewish tribes left no marked traces on his immediate successors (known as Caliphs). The first Caliphs based their treatment upon the Qur'anic verses encouraging tolerance. -- Aminz 10:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, the section is to first describe the definition of antisemitism that scholars adopt and the extent of antisemitism according to that definition. -- Aminz 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Therefore I think Lewis's view that "marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil." should come first. I have seen the passage you quote (antisemitism is " non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history.") in "The Jews of Islam(1984). But I think this should come after Lewis's definition is presented as the nature of antisemitism among Muslims. -- Aminz 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion:
"According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil." [18] According to Lewis, antisemitism in Islam is "non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history". According to Lewis, the outstanding characteristic of the classical Islamic view of Jews is their unimportance. The religious, philosophical, and literary Islamic writings tended to ignore Jews and focused more on Christianity. Although, the Jews received little praise or even respect, and were sometimes blamed for various misdeed but there were no fears of Jewish conspiracy and domination, nor any charges of diabolic evil nor accusations of poisoning the wells nor spreading the plague nor were even accused of engaging in blood libels until Ottomans learned the concept from their Greek subjects in 15th century. [19] For Lewis, from the late nineteenth century, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-semitic. [20]"
Any disagreement? -- Aminz 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil. (emphasis added)
<reset>No, more like I haven't discussed 10% of my edits, but have discussed 90% of them. "However, since your edits have little relation to these discussions, it's clear they are meaningless for you." Yes, because I am not making edits we are currently discussing (as discussion is one of sign of no concensus). Edits for which there was once discussion, and that discussion has ended, imply concensus. Those are the edits I make.
In any case, do you mass reverts have concensus? I haven't seen you ask for concensus in this article before making major edits ina long time. Yet you have made lots of edits nonetheless. Why don't you follow the rules you yourself tell others to follow? Bless sins 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bless sin's version basically includes the "complex story" bit. Plus it adds "were much better off under Islam than Christendom". Here are my thought:
"Jewish-Muslim relations are a complex story. While there is an antisemitic infrastructure extant in Islam, it is clear that Jews were much better off under Islam than Christendom."
The intro of this section seems neutral to me (unless we find more sources that dissent from current presented views). As to the sentence Bless sins wants to add("the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism"), I suggest we replace it by (placed in an appropriate place maybe at the end of the intro of the subsection) "Muslims [traditionally] saw the conflict between Muhammad and the Jews as something of minor importance in Muhammad's career" from page 117 of Lewis (1999). -- Aminz 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We should also retain the following
Of these most of the Quranic references are to the biblical Children of Israel, though a few references also talk about contemporary Jews. There is no specific mention of Jews in verses dating from the Meccan period.
Reason: The first sentence is definetly relevent, since it contrasts Banu Israel with Yahud. This discussion is also bieng conducted by Stillman in the hadith section. It it not fair to keep one, but reject the other.
The second sentence supports Lewis' view that the references in the Quran are mostly a result of Muhammad's conflict with the Jews. Please note that these sentences are sourced to relevent scholarly sources. Bless sins 11:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add the following from Martin Kramer to the definition section. Kramer's article can be found here [26].
For Martin Kramer, two common answers to the question of the source of today's antisemitism locates it "either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel." The argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essntial to Islam is that since the Qur'an states that some Jews engaged in treachery against Muhammad, it would inspire those Muslims who go back to the original sources of Jewish hatred. According to Kramer, this answer "touches on some truths, yet it misses many others". One is that in Islamic tradition, in striking contrast with the Christian concept of the eternal Jew, the the contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places; or that the Qur'an also records of Muhammad's amicable relations with some Jews. Kramer however states that today's Muslim antisemitism "make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use."
-- Aminz 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the only problem with the above summary is there should be a little more influence on the some of the important parts, namely the following paragraph of what he said needs more influence in the paragraph:
Does that mean that today's Islamic antisemitism has no grounding of Islam? No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds. Here is the mentor of Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah, pointing to the Qur'an as just such a source: "In the vocabulary of the Qur'an," he says, "Islamists have much of what they need to awaken the consciousness of Muslims, relying on the literal text of the Qur'an, because the Qur'an speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their historical conduct and future schemes."
-- Sefringle 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Martin Kramer, he seems to be a reliable source. His article is specifically on the topic of Islam and antisemitism. But please note that we shouldn't make the definition section too long. Bless sins 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Aminz's insertion, combined with Sefringle's addition. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Laqueur192
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Chanes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rosenblatt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 | → | Archive 9 |
Where do you start with this article? Bits added here and there, very little of it from truly scholarly sources, no attempt to reflect the range of academic views. Now accusations flying of WP:POINT and goodness knows what else.
So to go back to the beginning, which appears to be the Qur'an. Firstly it is absolutely essential to make it clear that the interpretation of a text hundreds of years old in a language that is no longer anyone's first language is not going to be straightforward.
It is appropriate, I think, to list all the verses that have been interpreted at some time as attacking or disparaging Jews (and/or Christians). This should lead straight into a thorough and balanced discussion of the different interpretations that have been made.
This doesn't currently happen, and instead we leap straight to the year 888, when the Aghlabids, who may have had some kind of control of some or all of Sicily (but still disputed full control with the Byzantines) issued a proclamation. I don't know whether the book referred to is an academic one or not - it is with a very good publisher, so let us assume it is, but I am concerned that the point is not directly related to the topic of the book, and also that this event does not appear in the Yellow badge or Timeline of antisemitism articles. It may be a good point to add, but will need proper checking.
Then another leap into the 21st century. I personally am in no doubt that Saudi textbooks have referred to the Qur'anic texts that mention apes and pigs - however, those texts are still open to interpretation. It is a live controversy and notable. Irrefutable sourcing can be made to the UK news media, because there was a recent case of an Islamic school in London using textbooks of Saudi origin that had such references. I saw the head teacher interviewed on the BBC. She did not deny that there were such references in the textbooks, but she did say that there were different interpretations of the Qur'anic verses, also that those chapters in the book had not been used in the school. Itsmejudith 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That Muslims hold that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion is cutting off a motivation for antisemitism (i.e. the "Jews killed Jesus" statements...) rather than one provoking antisemitism. -- Aminz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a lead should start "this article is about". It should ideally start "Islam and antisemitism" is ... . Itsmejudith 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, there are some important scholars, including Bernard Lewis, no less, who have specifically discussed the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Not only can their views be reflected here, they should be reflected here, and in fact the whole article should be based around these serious views of serious scholars. Of course it is a POV in the sense that anything that anyone says is a POV. Note that these scholars do not argue that it is impossible for Muslims to be antisemitic, they are simply saying that there is no intrinsic relationship between the religion Islam and the ideology of antisemitism. Although there are some contrary views that may also be discussed if they can be attributed to scholars of the issue, this is in fact the scholarly consensus and the article has to make the fact plain. Itsmejudith 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, can you please explain your recent edits?-- Sefringle 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a bit of a game going on with Bless sins' arguments, above. I'll summarize them so we don't have to keep going round and round.
All challenges are made solely for the purpose of removing any source which asserts a relationship between Islam and antisemitism. At some point the game playing must stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg:
Bless sins 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, in this edit, [2], "what various arab leaders say today belongs in "modern muslim antisemitsm"" While I can see your point, I must disagree, as this material is quite clearly about the Qur'anic claim that Jews were transformed into monkeys and pigs. What upsets me is that you make no mention of, or attempt to justify, your rearrangement of the subsections; one is forced to compare versions side by side to see what was done. Please take greater care in the future to ensure that your edit summaries address all of the significant changes you have made. Proabivouac 02:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Erel Shalit writes: We need to bear to listen to the accusations from the Arab world, however outrageous and anti-Semitic many of them are, for instance...
This section needs serious help. It appears at first glance that the claims of Lewis and Chanes have been intermingled and potentially corrupted, and at times its not clear what is being said. I'd like to verify who is saying what, and clean up some of the language. Proabivouac 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Violates WP:Due weight
The section is supposed to be about antisemitism inside the Qur'anic literature(as a subsection of "Qur'an"). That for example during tensions between the two community, the phrase was used by Muslims in abusive language, or that a certain Muslim dynasty in North Africa set up certain regulations are indirectly related. They deserve a brief mention in a few sentences (with the details coming in relevant sections). Currently, we have dedicated more than 1 page to it writing about what Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar stated on Syrian TV or what 'Abd Al-Sattar on November 8, 2005 said. By 2000+ quotes I mean quotes coming from year 2000 and afterwards.
I have summerized everything in the following which could be added to the "Attack" section:
"There are a number of other verses that refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs (e.g. see [ Quran 5:60,[ Quran 2:65, and [ Quran 7:166). [1] According to some commentators the transformation literary happened while others understand it metaphorically (e.g. as something that happened to Jewish hearts). [2] Johannes J. G. Jansen states that the qur'anic verse [ Quran 5:60 qualifies the Jews of Medina with the epithets apes and pigs. Many modern preachers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century. [3] [4] According to Lewis, the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims and the conventional epithets for Jews are apes, and for Christians are pigs. [5]"
The details can go to the relevant sections. Any objections?-- Aminz 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Norman Stillman, Antisemitism in Muslim world increased greatly for more than two decades following 1948 but "peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s." [6] Johannes Jansen believes that antisemitism will have no future in the Arab world in the long run. In his view, like other imports from the Western World, antisemitism is unable to establish itself in the private lives of Muslims. [7] Bernard Lewis writes that the expression of antisemitism at the personal level in the Muslim world is still quite rare. [8]
I am removing this section for the following reasons:
-- Sefringle 04:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
First this is a very one sided section; it is pretty clear the purpose is to push the POV that somehow Islam is not antisemitic. I know what NPOV states; it means views should be represented neutrally. And in response to wikipedia is not censored, there is wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda. (See WP:SOAP) There is no denying that all these scholars are saying the exact same thing; that antisemitism will not last in the muslim world. This is very one sided, and a clear POV pushing soapbox.
-- Sefringle 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to Sefringle: If saying that Islam is not antisemitic is POV, then saying Islam is antisemitic is also POV. I don't know why you want to block out references that doesn't agree with your POV, given that you know wikipedia is not a soapbox for your POV.
1. Ofcourse it contains valid information. It show how antisemitism changed throughout the 20th century, and what its future will be.
2. Such "speculations" are made all the time. In any case, I have already proved that wikipedia supports my edits because my edits are "properly referenced" (to RS). I have even shown you how WP:NOT#CBALL supports my edits. That you continue to deny that fact is just as absurd as your claim that my edits were "unsourced".
3. I never said Lewis' POV is somehow more accurate, nor did anything to imply that. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do. 17:35, 21 May 2007
4. Can you show how PEW global attitudes project, which you have not removed, is at all a reliable source on antisemitism? Bless sins 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No, there is nothing valid in the first quote. It is only a one sided POV that only repeats one of the views.
2. No. You haven't. See point 3 of WP:NOT#CBALL. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." This is clearly speculation and future history. Nobody will know the future of antisemitsim, likely nobody will know the future of any other belief. 3. read through my last comment again. You seem to have missed the point.
4.PEW is reliable because it provides surveys which have been reported in many reliable sources including highly notable newspapers, and other scholarly sourcs, and their statistics are regularly quoted. Second, it reports in this case on present attitudes of muslims, it is not speculating, and it clearly discusses antisemitism. -- Sefringle 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
1. That's just your POV. The first quote provides the reader with how antisemitism has varied from 1948 to the 1970s and to the 1980s and 1990s.
2. WP:NOT#CBALL says "It is appropriate to report discussion ... provided that discussion is properly referenced." Since my discussion is properly referenced, my edits are completely appropriate. This is the second time I have repeated this.
3. What was your point? State it in a clear and straightforward manner.
4.Please provide evidence as to how PEW is a relaible source on antisemitism. In other words, what qualifies the author(s) to comment on antisemitism. Please show evidence of the particular report you are talking about being quoted by "scholarly sourcs". Bless sins 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 04:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
1. What my intentions were when I added this, is not your concerns. The fact is that it provides the user with useful information. You can't deny that.
2. The full quote is ". It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis added) Jansen is predicting that a "development will occur", namely antisemitism will diminish in the Muslim world.
3. But if Lewis' quote is about trends, why should he be mentioned "many times" "outside of the trends section"?
4.I don't need you to bombard me with crude links. Your first link ( New York Times [11]) is just about when and where PEW has been mentioned. Can you provide me with sources that specifically mentions the relevent (i.e. the one about "Anti-Jewish sentiment") PEW survey that we are talking about? Bless sins 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No, there is nothing useful in this quote. Only lopsided POV, especially in this section.
2. No, Jansen is predicting future additudes. Here is the definition of development: [12] Notice that none of the definitions of development include changing attitudes.
3. He is mentioned many times outside of the trends section, not that he should be. Don't quote me out of context. What I said is the other places where he is mentioned are more appropiate places for his opinion. It is unduely defensively to mention this again.
4.Doesn't matter, it is a reliable source for statistics, or do you deny that. But since you asked for a specific site, here's one [13].-- Sefringle 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
1. I could say the same thing about PEW global attitudes...
2. "Development" means, amongst other things: [14]
3. His comments are about trends. Thus they should be in the trends section.
4. Does matter. In any case the link provided suffices PEW to be a reliable source. Bless sins 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. You could, but you would be lying. It is obvious how statistics are relevant. Opinions, however are not statistics.
2. Ok, now you are just misinterpriting the definition. Muslims becomming less antisemitic is not progress. It is changing attitudes. See the example "child development; economic development" Neither of these are examples of changing attitudes.
3.He comments not on trends, but just an opinion which has already been expressed many times throughout the article already. -- Sefringle 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, I can also accuse you of "lying" (your word not mine). Btw, Stillman's "opinion" is not an opinion, but a statement on trends.
2. No I'm not. I even used the definition/link you provided. Progress is progress, whether social ecnomic or moral. Also, antisemitism is a "significant" ideology (or whatever you want to call it), thus it fits the second definition as well.
3. His comment is about trends, the levels of expression of antisemitism in the Muslim world can be considered trends. the only differnce between him and PEW is that (a) he doesn't use percentages, and (b) he is a lot more reliable source. Bless sins 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. No that's false. Someone can't say "antisemitism in the Muslim world decreased for more than two decades following 1948" wihtout contradicting Norman Stillman. 1.On the other hand, some can interview a different group of people (after all PEW didn't even interview 1% of the Pakistani population) and arrive at the conclusion that only 45% of Pakistanis have views unfavorable towards Jews. Now that is an opinion.
2. Social progress is definetly a type of progress. Also the death of an ideology in 20% of humands is a "significant consequence".
3. Ofcourse it is related to trends. Just as PEW says "anti-Jeiwsh sentiment is endomic in the Muslim world" he says "expression of antisemitism at a personal level is quite rare". Same thing, except he give a different POV. And NPOV requires us to present his POV alongside others. Bless sins 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Why do you insist that Stillman's arguments are based on "rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty"? He is a reliable scholar. In any case in wikipedia, we don't question relaible sources, we report them.
2.I have shown you how Jansen's statements are appropriate. That you choose to call my argumetns "misinterpretation" without justification is a different matter.
3. Every thing you don't like, you label as "opinion", and everything you like you label as "fact". Please tell me the difference between Lewis' statements and PEW's statements. Bless sins 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1. We are clearly attributing the statement to Stillman, Jansen, Lewis etc. That's a fact. The only person questioning Stillman is you. Bring forth a scholar that questions Stillman. Even then we would be forced to present Stillman, as NPOV requires us to present all published POVs.
2. And I showed you in response to that how my interpretation was justified. The decline of antisemitism is both "progress" and a "consequence" as the definition of "development" suggests. You have so far not brought forth any concrete arguments against that.
3.Lewis' statement is based on his research. Infact Lewis is considered far more reliable thatn PEW in the field of Islam and antisemitism. Lewis' statement is just as much an "opinion" as PEW's statement that "anti-jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world". Bless sins 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Sefringle 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm not stating POVs as facts. I'm stating that "Norman Stillman states..." Please understand the difference. It is a fact that Norman Stillman writes what I claim he writes. You can verify the sources yourself.
2. I posted something on WP:NOT, Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Crystal_Ball. Though I got one response, it clearly suggests that Jansen's statements do not violate WP:NOT#CBALL. Sefringle, we have argued enough about this already.
3. You know that Lewis is more relaible than PEW. In any case th section is/was titled "Trends" not "Statistics". Thus Lewis' opinion belong there. Bless sins 12:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Change: Removing the following:
Muhammad is also known to have Jewish friends. [9] In 629, Muhammad married a Jewish woman called Safiyya. Professor Khaleel Muhammad points out that, because of this marriage, racist comments about Jews are unacceptable to Muslim sensibilities. [10] According to Poliakov, "the degree to which Muhammad shows his respect for each religion [Jews and Christians] is remarkable". [11]
Reason:This is being removed because it is irrelevant to Antisemitism.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide the full quote to prove that the arthor really is responding to antisemitism in Islam, and not just trying to show examples of tolerence within Islam?-- Sefringle 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said earlier, this article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism, not just the relationship between Islam and Jews as a whole. This doesn't prove any lack of prejudice nor isit even stated as a rebuddle. Thus it is not relevant.-- Sefringle 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. "Showing respect" does not mean like. Saladin and King Richard I of England respected each other. It would be improper to say they liked each other. Similar with many people who did battle with each other.-- Sefringle 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Change: Move "Judaism in Islamic theology" section to "tolerance for Jews" section. Also replacing "Modern scholars" with "According to Bernard Lewis[24] and Jerome Chanes"
Reason: This discusses Lewis' view that Jews are not antisemitic. Thus Lewis is saying that muslims are tolerant for Jews and thus cannot be antisemitic. Thus it is related to tolerence section. The origional title is very POV, so it is more relevant under the tolerence section. the name change is necessary, as nobody speaks for everyone.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The passage says that Muslims are not antisemitic. Thus it is saying that muslims respect jews. This a is simple definition.-- Sefringle 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is simple definition. Either you are tolerant or you are intolerent. Since they are arguing not intolerent, they are arguing tolerent.-- Sefringle 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Change: Moving Uri Rubin and Tahir Abbas section to tolerence section
Reason: It is more relevant to have all the similar views together. This discusses tolerence.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Change: restoring "Muslim beliefs that certain Jews were transformed into apes and pigs" section
Reason: Very relevant to this topic, part of the qur'an, pretty well sourced to secondary scholarly sources. It is not already covered in the attacks on Jews section, as that section mentions nothing about Jews being "apes and pigs."-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Change: keep the relevant quranic verses mentioned showing, outside of <ref></ref> system
"Reason:' make links to the verses easily avaliable to viewers. There is no reason to hide them.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I posted something on WP:CITE, the response was inadequate. Then I posted something on WP:MOSISLAM here. Only one person has responded. For what he/she says we should show the verses if there is only one, but if there are many verses (like Gerber quotes) the we should put them in "ref" tags. Bless sins 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Change:Seperate "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam" into "events" and "views"
Reason: The events are facts. The views, on the other hand are opinions, and thus can easily be disputed. They are just commentary on the events. They need to be seperated for easier reference and for clarification. It is also less POV to do things this way. The events need to be on the top, because that is the indisputed history, while opinions are not as important to the topic.-- Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing:
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. [12] It is not known whether this was ever applied. There are reports of relatively frequent repetition of the ordinance in Sicily and North Africa. This has been both interpreted to mean that "it was not rigorously enforced - while the same has been adduced for the opposite." [13]
Reason: Verifcation failed. I got the book and the given pages (i.e. 24 and 33) don't mention anything about antisemitism. Furthermore the pages also don't mention anything about the Aghlabid dynasty forcing the Jews to wear a patch. The index does not have the words "Palermo" and "Aghlabid". All references to "Sicily" and "North African communities" in the index don't mention the above event. Furthermore, all of the dates I found in the book were from fifteenth century and later. The book doesn't seem to at all discuss what happened in the ninth century.
If you want the section restored, please provide the relevent quote below. Also, mention the relvent part (e.g. one, two) and chapter (e.g Yashar's Early Years in Candia"). Bless sins 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I created a section on literature in "Antisemitism in premodern Islam". In this section I have grouped togethor all examples of antisemitsm/lack of antisemitism.
I also created a section called "dhimmi and jizya".
Reason: It organizes the article better. Also, the section "Early Islam", "Spain", and "Later rule" inherited from Sefringle's section called "Events". Literature and dhimmi, however, are not "events" and thus I put them in thier own sections respectively. I really don't see how creating these sections pushes a particular POV. So I don't think you guys should be opposed to this. Bless sins 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing
According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil."
Restoring
According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism in Islam is non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history.
Reason: The first statement is attributed to Lewis' The New Anti-Semitism. But when he makes those statements, he doesn't make them in relation to Islam. Thus I'm removing that statement as it is irrelvent to Islam. Infact, Lewis states "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil."
Secondly, the statement I'm restoring is sourced to Lewis and he is clearly talking about both Islam and antisemitism. Bless sins 19:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil.
I don't think the following belongs in this article:
Lewis states that in contrast to Christian antisemitism, the attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims is not one of hate, fear, or envy, but rather simply contempt. This contempt is expressed in various ways, such as abundance of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. "The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur." The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets are apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians. Lewis continues with several examples of regulations which were symbolizing the inferiority that non-Muslims living under Muslim rule had to live with, such as different formulae of greeting when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims (both in conversations or correspondences), and forbidding Jews and Christians to choose names used by Muslims for their children by the Ottoman times. [14]
Reason: The only antisemitism that Lewis discusses on page 33 is Christian antisemitism. Although he refers to Muslim attitudes he refrains from saying any thing - positive or negative - about Mulims/Islam in relation to antisemitism. Also, Lewis' work is about Jews of Islam and not about Islam and antisemitism per se. Thus it can't easily be established that Lewis is talking about Islam and antisemitism. Unless, someone can show otherwise, I will remove this passage.
Bless sins
21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this removial is that you are removing sourced content, and removing the list of verses that say Jews are Apes and pigs. The verses need to be clear, meaning outside of the <ref></ref> system. Remove the duplicate information, but don't remove the sourced content or try to hide the content.-- Sefringle 03:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the full quran verse is both appropiate and necessary in this case. This is a very notable concept, and the full verse would be encyclopediac here.-- Sefringle 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg:
Mohammad suggests that these verses are a polemic, addressed to those who "who were making fun of Islamic beliefs". He further suggests that the source of these stories of transformation may be midrashic works (including the Talmud) and Jewish oral tradition. Further he argues that the verse does not sterotype all Jews but only those who violated Sabbath. [15]
Jerome Chanes writes that during the first seven or eight centuries of Muslim history antisemitic activity was very rare. [16] Pinson and Rosenblatt also suggests that antisemitism "of an all-embracing character" has been rare throughout the history of Islam. [17]
<reset>I never said Schweitzer and Perry are "attacking". They are saying that the Quran is making negative comments about the Jews. No, I don't like Lewis' views, I like Abbas' views, which I moved to the bottom. All the sources in this article are scholarly writing specifically on topic (those that aren't will be removed). While Lewis gives a balanced view, giving due wieght to btoh sides, Schweitzer and Perry make one sided comments. If you want to include Schweitzer and Perry in the LEAD, then I can include Chanes and Abbas too. How about that? In any case, yet again your reverts are unexplained and you remove a lot of sourced info. Bless sins 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, you are adding material that says "in a hadith," meaning some scholar says some hadith says "(information)." Please specify which hadith.-- Sefringle 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Any edit which removes Schweitzer and Perry from the lead on the Qur'an will be reverted without comment, regardless of any other edits included with it, until you actually get consensus for this attempted whitewash, which appears unlikely. Just letting you know so you won't be surprised, and I won't have to repeat myself. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, we have Tahir Abbas who says that the Qur'an speaks favourably of the Jews "in general". So, we can mention both views or remove both. Either one is fine with me. I can see several of your comments use the word "whitewash" when refering other edits made by other editors. To me, it applies to some of your edits(e.g. your move of " Mark Cohen quotes Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, a specialist in medieval European Jewish history, who cautioned that Maimonides' condemnation of Islam should be understood "in the context of the harsh persections of the twelfth century..." was a big whitewash). -- Aminz 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What's interesting is that you are cherry picking quotes from Schweitzer and Perry. The section of their book on Islam starts with "JEWS PROSPERED IN THE ENORMOUS ARAB EMPIRE" (the capitals are thiers not mine). Interesting isn't it? Bless sins 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me point oput a few flaws in your argument:
<reset>"You have to live with the consequences of your actions". Huh? What does that have to with anything? I asked you to justify your reverts, not give me a random proverb. Bless sins 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, in your recent edits you yourself are removing Schweitzer and Perry. According to your own rules I should revert you instantaneously. Bless sins 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is different from "Tolerance for Jews" section. The Qur'anic verses are divided into positive and negative ones and discussed in "Attacks on Jews" and "Tolerance for Jews" sections. This is a separate topic. -- Aminz 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, when we say scholars like "X" say something, we should present what they say. And Lewis can not be a Muslim aplogetic in this matter. I suggest you take his book from a library (or check books.google.com) and read pages 117-118. -- Aminz 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The article should not list random acts of discrimination and persecution against Jews with no reference to their historical context. -- Aminz 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where this material belongs to"Under Muslim rule the exilarchs enjoyed quasi-royal powers and great prestige..." Early Muslim rule or later one? -- Aminz 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You said that muslims are not antisemitic. Poliakov didn't say Muslims were never antisemitic. Thus it is origional research or irrelevant.-- Sefringle 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
<reset>The first review states "A scholarly but eminently readable tracing of the sources and recurring themes of anti-Semitism." Bless sins 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A positive description should proceed. Lewis provides the following quote in relation to Early Islam:
Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."
Rosenblatt and Esposito and F.E. Peters say similar statments. Rosenblatt for example says that Muhammad's struggle with the neighbor Jewish tribes left no marked traces on his immediate successors (known as Caliphs). The first Caliphs based their treatment upon the Qur'anic verses encouraging tolerance. -- Aminz 10:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, the section is to first describe the definition of antisemitism that scholars adopt and the extent of antisemitism according to that definition. -- Aminz 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Therefore I think Lewis's view that "marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil." should come first. I have seen the passage you quote (antisemitism is " non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history.") in "The Jews of Islam(1984). But I think this should come after Lewis's definition is presented as the nature of antisemitism among Muslims. -- Aminz 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion:
"According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil." [18] According to Lewis, antisemitism in Islam is "non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history". According to Lewis, the outstanding characteristic of the classical Islamic view of Jews is their unimportance. The religious, philosophical, and literary Islamic writings tended to ignore Jews and focused more on Christianity. Although, the Jews received little praise or even respect, and were sometimes blamed for various misdeed but there were no fears of Jewish conspiracy and domination, nor any charges of diabolic evil nor accusations of poisoning the wells nor spreading the plague nor were even accused of engaging in blood libels until Ottomans learned the concept from their Greek subjects in 15th century. [19] For Lewis, from the late nineteenth century, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-semitic. [20]"
Any disagreement? -- Aminz 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil. (emphasis added)
<reset>No, more like I haven't discussed 10% of my edits, but have discussed 90% of them. "However, since your edits have little relation to these discussions, it's clear they are meaningless for you." Yes, because I am not making edits we are currently discussing (as discussion is one of sign of no concensus). Edits for which there was once discussion, and that discussion has ended, imply concensus. Those are the edits I make.
In any case, do you mass reverts have concensus? I haven't seen you ask for concensus in this article before making major edits ina long time. Yet you have made lots of edits nonetheless. Why don't you follow the rules you yourself tell others to follow? Bless sins 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bless sin's version basically includes the "complex story" bit. Plus it adds "were much better off under Islam than Christendom". Here are my thought:
"Jewish-Muslim relations are a complex story. While there is an antisemitic infrastructure extant in Islam, it is clear that Jews were much better off under Islam than Christendom."
The intro of this section seems neutral to me (unless we find more sources that dissent from current presented views). As to the sentence Bless sins wants to add("the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism"), I suggest we replace it by (placed in an appropriate place maybe at the end of the intro of the subsection) "Muslims [traditionally] saw the conflict between Muhammad and the Jews as something of minor importance in Muhammad's career" from page 117 of Lewis (1999). -- Aminz 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We should also retain the following
Of these most of the Quranic references are to the biblical Children of Israel, though a few references also talk about contemporary Jews. There is no specific mention of Jews in verses dating from the Meccan period.
Reason: The first sentence is definetly relevent, since it contrasts Banu Israel with Yahud. This discussion is also bieng conducted by Stillman in the hadith section. It it not fair to keep one, but reject the other.
The second sentence supports Lewis' view that the references in the Quran are mostly a result of Muhammad's conflict with the Jews. Please note that these sentences are sourced to relevent scholarly sources. Bless sins 11:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add the following from Martin Kramer to the definition section. Kramer's article can be found here [26].
For Martin Kramer, two common answers to the question of the source of today's antisemitism locates it "either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel." The argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essntial to Islam is that since the Qur'an states that some Jews engaged in treachery against Muhammad, it would inspire those Muslims who go back to the original sources of Jewish hatred. According to Kramer, this answer "touches on some truths, yet it misses many others". One is that in Islamic tradition, in striking contrast with the Christian concept of the eternal Jew, the the contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places; or that the Qur'an also records of Muhammad's amicable relations with some Jews. Kramer however states that today's Muslim antisemitism "make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use."
-- Aminz 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the only problem with the above summary is there should be a little more influence on the some of the important parts, namely the following paragraph of what he said needs more influence in the paragraph:
Does that mean that today's Islamic antisemitism has no grounding of Islam? No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds. Here is the mentor of Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah, pointing to the Qur'an as just such a source: "In the vocabulary of the Qur'an," he says, "Islamists have much of what they need to awaken the consciousness of Muslims, relying on the literal text of the Qur'an, because the Qur'an speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their historical conduct and future schemes."
-- Sefringle 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Martin Kramer, he seems to be a reliable source. His article is specifically on the topic of Islam and antisemitism. But please note that we shouldn't make the definition section too long. Bless sins 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Aminz's insertion, combined with Sefringle's addition. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Laqueur192
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Chanes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rosenblatt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).