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 |
Bless sins, could you propose your whitewash here first, explaining your rationale, and get agreement, before unilaterally inserting it? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
<reset>My explanations are on this talk page. My explanation about Lewis is under "Lewis as a source" section. My removal of another source is under "Primary sources" section. My removal of quotes is under "The quotes section" section. It's all there. However, I'm beginning to relaize that I may not have explained some of my edits. However, that doesn't justify the reversion of all my edits. Bless sins 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source. Can you be more specific about "POVing" Mark Cohen? Bless sins 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I just obtained a copy of Lewis' Semites and Antisemites. However, I couldn't find the following quote:
"The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions..." sourced to Semites and Antisemites New York/London: Norton, 1986, p. 286.
The copy I have is dated to 1986, and published by New York/London by Norton. However it only has 283 pages. Thus "p. 286" doesn't exist. Can you give me the correct page number? Bless sins 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"Also, for the last 1,400 years most Arabs have been Muslims, and all Arab governments have been Muslim." Are you familiar with Lebanon? It has had a Maronite Christian led government for quite a while, although things are quite unstable now. -- Shaddyz ( talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the material for this article can be covered in "Antisemitism and Islam"& "Antisemitism and Christianity" and "Antisemitism and Paganism". Arabs were either Muslims, or Christians or in ancient times Pagans. I think it is better to categorize this according to religion rather than according to race. So, I suggest we remove this article. Any feedback?-- Aminz 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The sources don't categorize them according to religion, and speak explicitly of Arab antisemitism. As has been pointed out many times, only a minority of Muslims are Arabs; the two terms are not at all synonymous, and antisemitism is particularly prominent in the Arab world. Bernard Lewis points out, "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impressions, the eminence and authority of those who write, publish and sponsor them, their place in school and college curricula, their role in the mass media, would all seem to suggest that classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time-almost as much as happened in Nazi Germany, and considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France." This is an Arab phenomenon, not a Muslim one. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can be of help here, but I tried editing Bless sins' version of the lead to something that might work better. I think Bless sins has helped the balance, but that pre-Israel issues should probably also be noted. This isn't perfect, but maybe people can offer suggestions from this?:
-- Mackan79 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply not as versed in the historical issues as others here, but, maybe that's a good place to start:
We could still add other material and should probably lessen the Lewis quote in the end, but how is that? Mackan79 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first paragraph, I don't think it is accurate. He is how I see the paragraph you have proposed:
1. The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East. 2. According to Bernard Lewis, Jews have for the last 1400 years lived in the position of a religious minority in the Arab world, with an attendant lack of equal social and political rights. 3. Nevertheless, the Arabs were not antisemitic. 4. While certain acts of violence occurred, and Jews were viewed as inferior to the Arab Muslim populations, the position was not entirely different from that of other religious minorities, and Jews were given a place of protection under Muslim law. 5. Lewis notes that Islam and Judaism were generally compatible and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide.
1. This sentence is better than the vague one we had before. But we should also include North Africa (and possibly even Arab Spain).
2. Actually, Jews have lived in Arabia, much before Islam (which is where the figure 1,400 comes from), and they were always a religious minority. Also, Lewis has very little to say about "lack of [historical] equal social and political rights" by Arabs (though I think he does mention Muslims). Can you please provide the page number for that? Also, from what Lewis writes, there was no uniform treatment of Jews, thus it is unaccurate to say that "for 1,400 years Jews lived in a postion..."
3. This Lewis does say. From the Lewis' chapter on "The Muslims and the Jews", this is one of the few things Lewis sys about Arabs - the rest is about Muslims.
4. Again, can you provide the page number for this, so that it can be cleared up whether Lewis is talking about Arabs or Muslims.
5. This is the primary reason Lewis gives for "Arab were not antisemitic". We should make that clear.
Thus I propose someting like this.
The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East and North Africa. According to Bernard Lewis, for most of the last 1,400 years, Arabs have not been antisemitic. Lewis notes that Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide. [8] Nevertheless, the situation of medieval Jewish minorities was far below the standard observed in present-day democracies, and worsened as Muslim power declined. [9]
The first reference is clearly referring to Arabs. The second reference is to a paragraph, which preceded by a reference to racism and Arab antisemitism, and succeeded by the content that references "However, since then Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown..."
Thus the reference works very nicely, connecting the two references specifically to Arab antisemitism. Bless sins 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Lack of accusations of cosmic evil should be added to the intro if we are choosing Lewis for the intro. -- Aminz 07:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Here it is:
For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, Arabs have not in fact been anti-Semitic...In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide. Muhamamad and his companions were not Jews...The Quran was not offered as a fullfillment of Judaism, but as new revelation...Islam, unlike Christianity, did not retain the Old estament, and no clash of interpretations could therefore arise. There is thus no Muslim equivalent to the long and in the teological sense still unresolved dispute between the Church and Israel.
Bless sins 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
ADDED 9/7/08 This entire article should be removed from WIKIPEDIA. Muslims collectively are not anti-Semitic. It is against Islam to be so. However, when a population is oppressed, they will develop negative feelings against the perceived oppressor. Only when Political Zionism began causing many Arabs in Palestine to be violently displaced from their homes did negativity toward this Jewish Ideology develop. But it is not against Jews for being Jews, rather it is against those Jews who would blaspheme the word of God by being Zionist. Zionism is inherantly racist, so any perception of Anti-Semitism coming from the Islamic world is a backlash against that racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.56.7 ( talk) 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I disagree with the general approach used in writing the section Arabs_and_antisemitism#Nineteenth_century. We should find sources giving a general overview of the situtation in 19th century. Picking one incident and starting the section with it should be done only if that incident exemplifies the whole situation in 19th century. Otherwise one can find some good incident and start the section with it. This appraoch, (i.e. finding certain incidents and listing them) is original research.-- Aminz 08:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is missing images. Some pictures should be added to this article.-- sefringle Talk 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
but ... (1) does this guy Lewis really have such a unique position on the issue to justify these long citations and prominent position in the introduction? Do we quote him explicitly because we don't fully accept what he says, or for some other reason? If he is basically a neutral summary we should just paraphase him and give him as a citation not make all these unencyclopaedia "according to Lewis" as though we were doing a PhD literature review. If not them where's the other side of the story? If he's so good do we all need to read his book before even commenting? (2) in general when we make a selection like "antisemitism and XYZ" I think we should consider some sort of disclaiming statement saying that it is inevitable that this kind of selection focuses on the issues when it existed and isn't a general summary of relationships between Jews and XYZ. Otherwise this article would be called "Jews and XYZ". This might solve for example the problem of arguing about whether something really existed (which seems to me a bit of a non issue: find me 100,000 people and I'll find one with a pathological hatred of pretty much anything you can mention). -- BozMo talk 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
To answer BozMo:
The tourist/visa info has nothing to do with antisemitism. All it demostrates is that the Saudi Ministry of Tourism has a bad webmaster. Please note that the Saudi government itself declared it erraneous info. Bless sins 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle: "this isn't the Islam and antisemitism article." Yes, but clearly the two are related and need to be discussed together, or it would be impossible to have separate articles. I can't imagine you're saying Islam isn't relevant here. Mackan79 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
While I am aware Arab-Christians exist, I do think this article should be merged with Islam and Anti-Semitism, as the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim, and this happens in the wider context of the Islamic world. Many Arab-Christians are merely mimicking their Arab-Muslim brethren.
Um.... was the situation of ANYBODY under ANY medieval rule up to the standards of modern democracy? I'm removing this sentence as entirely pointless. Eleland 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I did not move Lewis' opinion out of the lead originaly, I believe it was a good idea, because it makes the lead neutral. Opinions in this case are probably best left elsewhere in the article, for risk of asserting that one opinion is more true than another.-- Sefringle Talk 06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Firstly, Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises. Bless sins 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll make it clear:
Here. They are numbered now. Happy?
-- Sefringle Talk 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm very happy, and so is every other reader who appreciates structure and clarity.
1. Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises.
2. Are there any scholars who satisfy all of the following: are scholarly source on Arabs, are a scholarly source on antisemitism, and give an overview of antisemitism throughout the past 1,400 years? If yes, include them, is there anyone who stopped you?
3. The lead must contain someone's statements (since every statement must be sourced to someone). I agree that we should have a neutral lead (like we do when I revert).
4. Ofcourse he says Islam is the reason! He says "In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide." (emphasis added) Bless sins 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1. How many do I need to repeat myself? He belongs in the lead because he is by far the most scholarly, and his statement summarizes the subject.
2. If there are, then give me their names.
3. What do you mean by "POV"?
4. "Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism". He implies that Islam was a major religion of the Arabs (and you know that is true). this is why the statement is placed in a section titled "Muslims and Jews". He also says that it was compatible with Judaism:
As for "did not foster theological conflicts that would result in antisemitism":
1. Yes to the first sentence, No to the others. The sentences can be sourced to a scholar, but don't half to be, and an opinion doesn't have to be presented.
4. This is very similar to saying "Islam is compatible with Judaism". How so? It isn't similar at all; you are making things up again. Why don't we present exactly what Lewis says, which is what I included; Arabs were not Christians and thus didn't believe in stories of Jewish deicide. That is what he really said, none of this islam garbage you are claiming he said, which is a clear strech of the truth. The third quote says that there is no unresolved theological conflict between Muslims religious institutions and Israel No, it says there is no Muslim equivalent. It doesn't say there is "no unresolved theological conflict". -- Sefringle Talk 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1. yes, but why does that sentence have to be a perspective?
4. Lewis does not enthesize Islam though, and never says arabs were antisemitic because of Islam. I think we are best paraphraising exactly what he says without interpriting what we think he means. We start interpriting, as you have attempted to do, we get into the rhelm of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.-- Sefringle Talk 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Every idea is a perspective of someone. Many ideas are perspectives of a wide and respected group of scholars. Other ideas are not. Besides I never said we should have a "perspective" in the lead, I said we should have a meaningful idea in the lead. "This article is about Arabs and antisemitism" is not a meaningful idea.
4. He does emphasize Islam. Almost every sentence after the statement "Arabs were not antisemitic" has to do with Islam. This is what I propose:
According to Bernard Lewis, for most of the last 1,400 years, Arabs have not been antisemitic, because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism and nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews.
Sefringle, the reason I'm summarizing is because I want to keep Lewis' statements brief. If you absolutely insist on quoting him then it would triple the size of the space given to Lewis. Ask yourself, do you really want that? Bless sins 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Please explain further what you mean by "meaningful idea".
4. The releavant paragraph of what Lewis says reads as follows [4]:
For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, the Arabs had not in fact been antisemitic as the word is used in the west-not because they were semites, a meaningless statement, but because for the most part they are not Christians.In Islam, Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up in stories of Jewish decide. Indeed, the very notion of decide is rejected by the qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Like the founder of Christianity, the founder of Islam had his encounter with the Jews, but both the circumstances and the outcome were very different. Muhammad and his companions were not Jews, and did not live and preach their message in a Jewish society. the Jews whom they knew were the three Jewish tribes of Medina, a religous minority in the predominantly pagen Arabian community. The muslims did not concive or present themselves as the new and true Israel; they did not therefore feel threatened or impunged by the obstinate survival of the Old Israel. The qur'an was not offered as a fufillment of Judaism, but as a new revelation, superseding both the Jewish and Christian scriptures, which had been neglected or distorted by their unworthy custodians. Islam, unlkie Christianity, did not retain the Old Testament, and no clash of interpritations could therefore arise.
Please show me where he says "Arabs have not been antisemitic, because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism and nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews." I'm not asking you to quote in full, I am asking you to paraphraise his words without interpritations of what you think he means. Sefringle Talk 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
1. I'll teach by example. Meaningful ideas:
Ideas that are not meaningful, and are pretty obvious:
4. Gladly.
1. OK, you made your point, but explain how your "meaningful idea" is different from a perspective. 4. OK, now it is clear where the misinterpritations came from.
Yahel Guhan 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.
Now you can accept the above, or accept my summarized version. It's up to you. Bless sins 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown due to two reasons: nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; [10] and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. [11] By the 1980s, Lewis continues, the volume of antisemitic literature published, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life. [12]
<reset>How many times do we need to go over this? Lewis belongs in the lead because he is by far the most scholarly, and his statement summarizes the subject. You are free to add other statements that summarize the article, if they indeed summarize it. But please don't censor Lewis. Bless sins 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.
Antisemitism in the Arab world increased greatly in modern times, due to many reasons: the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Christian Arabs; and the rise of Arab nationalism. In addition, there was resentment of disproportionate influence Jews had gained under colonialism, and of the Zionist movement.
While there were antisemitic incidents in the early twentieth century, antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel. The Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967 served a severe shock to the Arabs. The readiness of Arab regimes to scapegoat Jews for political purposes deteriorated the situation of the Jews and almost all emigrated (some voluntarily, others under threat). By the 1980s, the volume of antisemitic literature published in the Arab world, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France, and almost as much in Nazi Germany.
For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.
Antisemitism in the Arab world has greatly increased in modern times. Nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. By the 1980s, Lewis continues, the volume of antisemitic literature published, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France, and almost as much in Nazi Germany.
Modern antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict, there were an increasing number of pogroms against Jews prior to the foundation of Israel, including Nazi-inspired pogroms in Algeria in the 1930s, and attacks on the Jews in Iraq and Libya in the 1940s (see Farhud). George Gruen attributes the increased animosity towards Jews in the Arab world to several factors including: The breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; domination by Western colonial powers under which Jews gained a disproportionately large role in the commercial, professional, and administrative life of the region; the rise of Arab nationalism, whose proponents sought the wealth and positions of local Jews through government channels; resentment over Jewish nationalism and the Zionist movement; and the readiness of unpopular regimes to scapegoat local Jews for political purposes.
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel, and the independence of Arab countries from European control, conditions for Jews in the Arab world deteriorated. Over the next few decades, almost all would flee the Arab world, some willingly, and some under threat (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands). In 1945 there were between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews (see table below) living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000. In some Arab states, such as Libya (which was once around 3% Jewish), the Jewish community no longer exists; in other Arab countries, only a few hundred Jews remain.
I took two paragraphs straight out from this article that I think summarize modern antisemitism, as well as restored Lewis' other view. Yahel Guhan 01:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The section is about the etymology and usage of the terms antisemitism. This topic is already covered in the main article. There is no reason of duplicate it in various articles about antisemitism. This is not paper book, and the definition/usage is easily reachable via a wikilink by a simple mouse click. Wikipedia is against forking the content because is is maintenance problem to keep texts consistent. I deleted it. If someone restores is, please state your reason. Mukadderat 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your concerns, and request unprotection when you are ready. Tom Harrison Talk 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how either of the proposed version is acceptable.
Str1977 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion for about a month. Perhaps the article should be unprotected. Bless sins ( talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
When this article is unlocked people might like to add this image
This is a nice image and is free for us to use, and would liven up this poor image-less article. Lobojo ( talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The image will be included, once the page gets unprotected. It is pretty obvious that the image is antisemitic. Yahel Guhan 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll play devil's advocate.. Can you prove how many Jordanians buy these books? I think that would be much more valid to include. Moreover, aren't these books purchasable in the Western World also? Just as an example, even after a massive Cold War, the Communist Manifesto is still readily sold here in America. It's not like these antisemitic works are entirely out of print in the West, otherwise they wouldn't be printing in the Middle East, either. This appears to be a synthesis of original research; you cannot post a bunch of things, even if they are cited, in order to advance a different position. The only thing this image proves is that anti-semitic books are purchasable in Jordan. It does not prove how well they sell; moreover, it reflects much more badly upon the Jordanian government than it does on Jordanian Arabs themselves; Jordan, after all, isn't a beacon for Freedom of the Press. It does not prove that antisemitism is rampant in the Middle East. It's an image; and people are making suggestions as to what it could potentially mean about Arabs in general (which, in itself, appears to be a stereotype). That sure does sound like OR. Let the facts speak for themselves. I could just as easily go to Norway and take a snapshot of some neo-nazis (who are politically active across Europe); that doesn't necessarily mean their behavior represents the majority. There are much better pictures one could find, anyway. Anti-Jewish protests (NOT to be confused with Anti-Zionist) for example, would be a good place to start, since they aren't all that uncommon. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did users upload an image without being able to read what is said? Whoever provided the image does not read Arabic or means to cause confusion. The vast majority of these books have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism or Judaism. There is one book Protocols of Elders of Zion, which is sold in the west, as I have only come to know it from western friends. Another book is called Fall of Israel, but it should not be assumed that this book is against Judaism or antisemitic, because if it were, then many Jewish scholars are antisemitic like Norm Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. There is even a book about racism!! (middle to the left), But I dont see the photo description mentioning that. This proves that these books are a whole variety. The book with Natanyahu on the cover is called A place between nations, another book is called War for Peace and Shimon Perez: The new Middle East. These relate to leaders and are in no way whatsoever anti-anything. The book in the middle to the write is about Clinton. The rest of the books are about specific areas of study, a biography of an Arab politician, an interpretation of the Qur'an, and some other insignificant stuff.
You guys uploaded without being able to read? There is a book about racism in there (middle left). other books are biographies, arab, israeli, and american. One book is against an arab politician. is it antiarab? this proves these books are widely varied. the protocals of zion is actually translated from english, and is sold in america. american markets are antisemitic? ( 67.171.224.169 ( talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
I demanded that a user show a source for this back on 9 January 2008. I also asked for a reliable on 26 January and 16 February 2008. Now again I ask for a reliable source on the image. Clearly the Arabic in the image is under dispute. 67.171.224.169 found that the books are not antisemitic. I see no evidence that these books are in Jordan, rather I suspect they could be in someone's backyard. (Even if there was an Ammam skyline in the background someone can easily Photoshop it). thus we need reliable sources. Bless sins ( talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This RfC is regarding whether to include the above image, and then the caption to be placed under the image. I insist that we use a reliable source for the caption, else I propose "Books endorsing tolerance of Jews at a bookstall in Amman". Bless sins ( talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[8]) by someone who claims to read Arabic. Specifically he/she says that there are books critical of Arab politicians, and racism in the picture. Bless sins ( talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Bless sins, could you propose your whitewash here first, explaining your rationale, and get agreement, before unilaterally inserting it? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
<reset>My explanations are on this talk page. My explanation about Lewis is under "Lewis as a source" section. My removal of another source is under "Primary sources" section. My removal of quotes is under "The quotes section" section. It's all there. However, I'm beginning to relaize that I may not have explained some of my edits. However, that doesn't justify the reversion of all my edits. Bless sins 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source. Can you be more specific about "POVing" Mark Cohen? Bless sins 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I just obtained a copy of Lewis' Semites and Antisemites. However, I couldn't find the following quote:
"The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions..." sourced to Semites and Antisemites New York/London: Norton, 1986, p. 286.
The copy I have is dated to 1986, and published by New York/London by Norton. However it only has 283 pages. Thus "p. 286" doesn't exist. Can you give me the correct page number? Bless sins 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"Also, for the last 1,400 years most Arabs have been Muslims, and all Arab governments have been Muslim." Are you familiar with Lebanon? It has had a Maronite Christian led government for quite a while, although things are quite unstable now. -- Shaddyz ( talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the material for this article can be covered in "Antisemitism and Islam"& "Antisemitism and Christianity" and "Antisemitism and Paganism". Arabs were either Muslims, or Christians or in ancient times Pagans. I think it is better to categorize this according to religion rather than according to race. So, I suggest we remove this article. Any feedback?-- Aminz 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The sources don't categorize them according to religion, and speak explicitly of Arab antisemitism. As has been pointed out many times, only a minority of Muslims are Arabs; the two terms are not at all synonymous, and antisemitism is particularly prominent in the Arab world. Bernard Lewis points out, "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impressions, the eminence and authority of those who write, publish and sponsor them, their place in school and college curricula, their role in the mass media, would all seem to suggest that classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time-almost as much as happened in Nazi Germany, and considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France." This is an Arab phenomenon, not a Muslim one. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can be of help here, but I tried editing Bless sins' version of the lead to something that might work better. I think Bless sins has helped the balance, but that pre-Israel issues should probably also be noted. This isn't perfect, but maybe people can offer suggestions from this?:
-- Mackan79 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply not as versed in the historical issues as others here, but, maybe that's a good place to start:
We could still add other material and should probably lessen the Lewis quote in the end, but how is that? Mackan79 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first paragraph, I don't think it is accurate. He is how I see the paragraph you have proposed:
1. The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East. 2. According to Bernard Lewis, Jews have for the last 1400 years lived in the position of a religious minority in the Arab world, with an attendant lack of equal social and political rights. 3. Nevertheless, the Arabs were not antisemitic. 4. While certain acts of violence occurred, and Jews were viewed as inferior to the Arab Muslim populations, the position was not entirely different from that of other religious minorities, and Jews were given a place of protection under Muslim law. 5. Lewis notes that Islam and Judaism were generally compatible and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide.
1. This sentence is better than the vague one we had before. But we should also include North Africa (and possibly even Arab Spain).
2. Actually, Jews have lived in Arabia, much before Islam (which is where the figure 1,400 comes from), and they were always a religious minority. Also, Lewis has very little to say about "lack of [historical] equal social and political rights" by Arabs (though I think he does mention Muslims). Can you please provide the page number for that? Also, from what Lewis writes, there was no uniform treatment of Jews, thus it is unaccurate to say that "for 1,400 years Jews lived in a postion..."
3. This Lewis does say. From the Lewis' chapter on "The Muslims and the Jews", this is one of the few things Lewis sys about Arabs - the rest is about Muslims.
4. Again, can you provide the page number for this, so that it can be cleared up whether Lewis is talking about Arabs or Muslims.
5. This is the primary reason Lewis gives for "Arab were not antisemitic". We should make that clear.
Thus I propose someting like this.
The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East and North Africa. According to Bernard Lewis, for most of the last 1,400 years, Arabs have not been antisemitic. Lewis notes that Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide. [8] Nevertheless, the situation of medieval Jewish minorities was far below the standard observed in present-day democracies, and worsened as Muslim power declined. [9]
The first reference is clearly referring to Arabs. The second reference is to a paragraph, which preceded by a reference to racism and Arab antisemitism, and succeeded by the content that references "However, since then Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown..."
Thus the reference works very nicely, connecting the two references specifically to Arab antisemitism. Bless sins 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Lack of accusations of cosmic evil should be added to the intro if we are choosing Lewis for the intro. -- Aminz 07:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Here it is:
For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, Arabs have not in fact been anti-Semitic...In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide. Muhamamad and his companions were not Jews...The Quran was not offered as a fullfillment of Judaism, but as new revelation...Islam, unlike Christianity, did not retain the Old estament, and no clash of interpretations could therefore arise. There is thus no Muslim equivalent to the long and in the teological sense still unresolved dispute between the Church and Israel.
Bless sins 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
ADDED 9/7/08 This entire article should be removed from WIKIPEDIA. Muslims collectively are not anti-Semitic. It is against Islam to be so. However, when a population is oppressed, they will develop negative feelings against the perceived oppressor. Only when Political Zionism began causing many Arabs in Palestine to be violently displaced from their homes did negativity toward this Jewish Ideology develop. But it is not against Jews for being Jews, rather it is against those Jews who would blaspheme the word of God by being Zionist. Zionism is inherantly racist, so any perception of Anti-Semitism coming from the Islamic world is a backlash against that racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.56.7 ( talk) 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I disagree with the general approach used in writing the section Arabs_and_antisemitism#Nineteenth_century. We should find sources giving a general overview of the situtation in 19th century. Picking one incident and starting the section with it should be done only if that incident exemplifies the whole situation in 19th century. Otherwise one can find some good incident and start the section with it. This appraoch, (i.e. finding certain incidents and listing them) is original research.-- Aminz 08:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is missing images. Some pictures should be added to this article.-- sefringle Talk 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
but ... (1) does this guy Lewis really have such a unique position on the issue to justify these long citations and prominent position in the introduction? Do we quote him explicitly because we don't fully accept what he says, or for some other reason? If he is basically a neutral summary we should just paraphase him and give him as a citation not make all these unencyclopaedia "according to Lewis" as though we were doing a PhD literature review. If not them where's the other side of the story? If he's so good do we all need to read his book before even commenting? (2) in general when we make a selection like "antisemitism and XYZ" I think we should consider some sort of disclaiming statement saying that it is inevitable that this kind of selection focuses on the issues when it existed and isn't a general summary of relationships between Jews and XYZ. Otherwise this article would be called "Jews and XYZ". This might solve for example the problem of arguing about whether something really existed (which seems to me a bit of a non issue: find me 100,000 people and I'll find one with a pathological hatred of pretty much anything you can mention). -- BozMo talk 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
To answer BozMo:
The tourist/visa info has nothing to do with antisemitism. All it demostrates is that the Saudi Ministry of Tourism has a bad webmaster. Please note that the Saudi government itself declared it erraneous info. Bless sins 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle: "this isn't the Islam and antisemitism article." Yes, but clearly the two are related and need to be discussed together, or it would be impossible to have separate articles. I can't imagine you're saying Islam isn't relevant here. Mackan79 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
While I am aware Arab-Christians exist, I do think this article should be merged with Islam and Anti-Semitism, as the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim, and this happens in the wider context of the Islamic world. Many Arab-Christians are merely mimicking their Arab-Muslim brethren.
Um.... was the situation of ANYBODY under ANY medieval rule up to the standards of modern democracy? I'm removing this sentence as entirely pointless. Eleland 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I did not move Lewis' opinion out of the lead originaly, I believe it was a good idea, because it makes the lead neutral. Opinions in this case are probably best left elsewhere in the article, for risk of asserting that one opinion is more true than another.-- Sefringle Talk 06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Firstly, Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises. Bless sins 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll make it clear:
Here. They are numbered now. Happy?
-- Sefringle Talk 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm very happy, and so is every other reader who appreciates structure and clarity.
1. Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises.
2. Are there any scholars who satisfy all of the following: are scholarly source on Arabs, are a scholarly source on antisemitism, and give an overview of antisemitism throughout the past 1,400 years? If yes, include them, is there anyone who stopped you?
3. The lead must contain someone's statements (since every statement must be sourced to someone). I agree that we should have a neutral lead (like we do when I revert).
4. Ofcourse he says Islam is the reason! He says "In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide." (emphasis added) Bless sins 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1. How many do I need to repeat myself? He belongs in the lead because he is by far the most scholarly, and his statement summarizes the subject.
2. If there are, then give me their names.
3. What do you mean by "POV"?
4. "Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism". He implies that Islam was a major religion of the Arabs (and you know that is true). this is why the statement is placed in a section titled "Muslims and Jews". He also says that it was compatible with Judaism:
As for "did not foster theological conflicts that would result in antisemitism":
1. Yes to the first sentence, No to the others. The sentences can be sourced to a scholar, but don't half to be, and an opinion doesn't have to be presented.
4. This is very similar to saying "Islam is compatible with Judaism". How so? It isn't similar at all; you are making things up again. Why don't we present exactly what Lewis says, which is what I included; Arabs were not Christians and thus didn't believe in stories of Jewish deicide. That is what he really said, none of this islam garbage you are claiming he said, which is a clear strech of the truth. The third quote says that there is no unresolved theological conflict between Muslims religious institutions and Israel No, it says there is no Muslim equivalent. It doesn't say there is "no unresolved theological conflict". -- Sefringle Talk 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1. yes, but why does that sentence have to be a perspective?
4. Lewis does not enthesize Islam though, and never says arabs were antisemitic because of Islam. I think we are best paraphraising exactly what he says without interpriting what we think he means. We start interpriting, as you have attempted to do, we get into the rhelm of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.-- Sefringle Talk 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Every idea is a perspective of someone. Many ideas are perspectives of a wide and respected group of scholars. Other ideas are not. Besides I never said we should have a "perspective" in the lead, I said we should have a meaningful idea in the lead. "This article is about Arabs and antisemitism" is not a meaningful idea.
4. He does emphasize Islam. Almost every sentence after the statement "Arabs were not antisemitic" has to do with Islam. This is what I propose:
According to Bernard Lewis, for most of the last 1,400 years, Arabs have not been antisemitic, because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism and nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews.
Sefringle, the reason I'm summarizing is because I want to keep Lewis' statements brief. If you absolutely insist on quoting him then it would triple the size of the space given to Lewis. Ask yourself, do you really want that? Bless sins 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Please explain further what you mean by "meaningful idea".
4. The releavant paragraph of what Lewis says reads as follows [4]:
For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, the Arabs had not in fact been antisemitic as the word is used in the west-not because they were semites, a meaningless statement, but because for the most part they are not Christians.In Islam, Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up in stories of Jewish decide. Indeed, the very notion of decide is rejected by the qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Like the founder of Christianity, the founder of Islam had his encounter with the Jews, but both the circumstances and the outcome were very different. Muhammad and his companions were not Jews, and did not live and preach their message in a Jewish society. the Jews whom they knew were the three Jewish tribes of Medina, a religous minority in the predominantly pagen Arabian community. The muslims did not concive or present themselves as the new and true Israel; they did not therefore feel threatened or impunged by the obstinate survival of the Old Israel. The qur'an was not offered as a fufillment of Judaism, but as a new revelation, superseding both the Jewish and Christian scriptures, which had been neglected or distorted by their unworthy custodians. Islam, unlkie Christianity, did not retain the Old Testament, and no clash of interpritations could therefore arise.
Please show me where he says "Arabs have not been antisemitic, because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism and nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews." I'm not asking you to quote in full, I am asking you to paraphraise his words without interpritations of what you think he means. Sefringle Talk 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
1. I'll teach by example. Meaningful ideas:
Ideas that are not meaningful, and are pretty obvious:
4. Gladly.
1. OK, you made your point, but explain how your "meaningful idea" is different from a perspective. 4. OK, now it is clear where the misinterpritations came from.
Yahel Guhan 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.
Now you can accept the above, or accept my summarized version. It's up to you. Bless sins 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown due to two reasons: nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; [10] and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. [11] By the 1980s, Lewis continues, the volume of antisemitic literature published, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life. [12]
<reset>How many times do we need to go over this? Lewis belongs in the lead because he is by far the most scholarly, and his statement summarizes the subject. You are free to add other statements that summarize the article, if they indeed summarize it. But please don't censor Lewis. Bless sins 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.
Antisemitism in the Arab world increased greatly in modern times, due to many reasons: the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Christian Arabs; and the rise of Arab nationalism. In addition, there was resentment of disproportionate influence Jews had gained under colonialism, and of the Zionist movement.
While there were antisemitic incidents in the early twentieth century, antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel. The Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967 served a severe shock to the Arabs. The readiness of Arab regimes to scapegoat Jews for political purposes deteriorated the situation of the Jews and almost all emigrated (some voluntarily, others under threat). By the 1980s, the volume of antisemitic literature published in the Arab world, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France, and almost as much in Nazi Germany.
For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.
Antisemitism in the Arab world has greatly increased in modern times. Nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. By the 1980s, Lewis continues, the volume of antisemitic literature published, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France, and almost as much in Nazi Germany.
Modern antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict, there were an increasing number of pogroms against Jews prior to the foundation of Israel, including Nazi-inspired pogroms in Algeria in the 1930s, and attacks on the Jews in Iraq and Libya in the 1940s (see Farhud). George Gruen attributes the increased animosity towards Jews in the Arab world to several factors including: The breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; domination by Western colonial powers under which Jews gained a disproportionately large role in the commercial, professional, and administrative life of the region; the rise of Arab nationalism, whose proponents sought the wealth and positions of local Jews through government channels; resentment over Jewish nationalism and the Zionist movement; and the readiness of unpopular regimes to scapegoat local Jews for political purposes.
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel, and the independence of Arab countries from European control, conditions for Jews in the Arab world deteriorated. Over the next few decades, almost all would flee the Arab world, some willingly, and some under threat (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands). In 1945 there were between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews (see table below) living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000. In some Arab states, such as Libya (which was once around 3% Jewish), the Jewish community no longer exists; in other Arab countries, only a few hundred Jews remain.
I took two paragraphs straight out from this article that I think summarize modern antisemitism, as well as restored Lewis' other view. Yahel Guhan 01:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The section is about the etymology and usage of the terms antisemitism. This topic is already covered in the main article. There is no reason of duplicate it in various articles about antisemitism. This is not paper book, and the definition/usage is easily reachable via a wikilink by a simple mouse click. Wikipedia is against forking the content because is is maintenance problem to keep texts consistent. I deleted it. If someone restores is, please state your reason. Mukadderat 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your concerns, and request unprotection when you are ready. Tom Harrison Talk 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how either of the proposed version is acceptable.
Str1977 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion for about a month. Perhaps the article should be unprotected. Bless sins ( talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
When this article is unlocked people might like to add this image
This is a nice image and is free for us to use, and would liven up this poor image-less article. Lobojo ( talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The image will be included, once the page gets unprotected. It is pretty obvious that the image is antisemitic. Yahel Guhan 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll play devil's advocate.. Can you prove how many Jordanians buy these books? I think that would be much more valid to include. Moreover, aren't these books purchasable in the Western World also? Just as an example, even after a massive Cold War, the Communist Manifesto is still readily sold here in America. It's not like these antisemitic works are entirely out of print in the West, otherwise they wouldn't be printing in the Middle East, either. This appears to be a synthesis of original research; you cannot post a bunch of things, even if they are cited, in order to advance a different position. The only thing this image proves is that anti-semitic books are purchasable in Jordan. It does not prove how well they sell; moreover, it reflects much more badly upon the Jordanian government than it does on Jordanian Arabs themselves; Jordan, after all, isn't a beacon for Freedom of the Press. It does not prove that antisemitism is rampant in the Middle East. It's an image; and people are making suggestions as to what it could potentially mean about Arabs in general (which, in itself, appears to be a stereotype). That sure does sound like OR. Let the facts speak for themselves. I could just as easily go to Norway and take a snapshot of some neo-nazis (who are politically active across Europe); that doesn't necessarily mean their behavior represents the majority. There are much better pictures one could find, anyway. Anti-Jewish protests (NOT to be confused with Anti-Zionist) for example, would be a good place to start, since they aren't all that uncommon. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did users upload an image without being able to read what is said? Whoever provided the image does not read Arabic or means to cause confusion. The vast majority of these books have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism or Judaism. There is one book Protocols of Elders of Zion, which is sold in the west, as I have only come to know it from western friends. Another book is called Fall of Israel, but it should not be assumed that this book is against Judaism or antisemitic, because if it were, then many Jewish scholars are antisemitic like Norm Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. There is even a book about racism!! (middle to the left), But I dont see the photo description mentioning that. This proves that these books are a whole variety. The book with Natanyahu on the cover is called A place between nations, another book is called War for Peace and Shimon Perez: The new Middle East. These relate to leaders and are in no way whatsoever anti-anything. The book in the middle to the write is about Clinton. The rest of the books are about specific areas of study, a biography of an Arab politician, an interpretation of the Qur'an, and some other insignificant stuff.
You guys uploaded without being able to read? There is a book about racism in there (middle left). other books are biographies, arab, israeli, and american. One book is against an arab politician. is it antiarab? this proves these books are widely varied. the protocals of zion is actually translated from english, and is sold in america. american markets are antisemitic? ( 67.171.224.169 ( talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
I demanded that a user show a source for this back on 9 January 2008. I also asked for a reliable on 26 January and 16 February 2008. Now again I ask for a reliable source on the image. Clearly the Arabic in the image is under dispute. 67.171.224.169 found that the books are not antisemitic. I see no evidence that these books are in Jordan, rather I suspect they could be in someone's backyard. (Even if there was an Ammam skyline in the background someone can easily Photoshop it). thus we need reliable sources. Bless sins ( talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This RfC is regarding whether to include the above image, and then the caption to be placed under the image. I insist that we use a reliable source for the caption, else I propose "Books endorsing tolerance of Jews at a bookstall in Amman". Bless sins ( talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[8]) by someone who claims to read Arabic. Specifically he/she says that there are books critical of Arab politicians, and racism in the picture. Bless sins ( talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)