![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I've elided the 'however' that gave rise to Jayjg's impression I was making a counter argument, where I was using the word epexegetically. I apologize for the ambiguity. As it stands, the three further sources, independent one of the other, throw further detail on what Lewis and Laqueur refer to.
I've added a further source for the Yahud/Ban'i Israel distinction. Apparently the former is negative, the latter positive, an important point.
This edit, like some others I have made, draws on work that does not deal specifically with the combined theme 'Islam and antisemitism'. In the lead, the subject to be treated is defined thus:-
'Islam and antisemitism looks at the teaching of Islam relating to Jews and Judaism and the attitudes of the Muslim world in history to Jews as a people, and the treatment of Jews in Muslim countries.
My work so far looks at the teaching of Islam relating to Jews and Judaism, not as yet to the second part (which deals with the modern inflections of antisemitism on traditional Muslim prejudices). As I found the text, it was very poorly documented for islamic teachings on Jews and Judaism, and thus falls short of one of the two requirements stipulated in the lead. Since the Qur'an is the foundational text for Muslim views, and has been held responsible for the nature of Jewish-Muslim tensions, it seems to me obvious that slightly more attention be given, via the best academic sources on Qur'anic images of the Jews, to the background.
In general this article is poorly organized (the 5 positions outlined define positions by scholars, for example. Several of those scholars share the same perspective. If dealt with thematically, you would get an overview with two, at most three, points, not five, and certainly not bulletted, which give the mistaken impression that many of these scholars hold different views. They don't.)
All I am interested in at the moment is providing a larger range of references for the issues already present in the text before I began to edit. There is a large amount of reduplication because comments are organized not by theme, but by scholars: again, poor practice. I hope future editors will agree that, as organized so far, the article needs considerable restructuring. That is not something I have time to do. Nishidani ( talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
For the casual reader: of the five sources Jayjg questioned, three are readily accessible online and all three explicitly address Islam and antisemitism. I'm in the process of checking the other two. This and related threads appear to be nothing more than an obstructionist bluff on Jayjg's part.-- G-Dett ( talk) 06:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article to be merged with Islam_and_Judaism. In my view, it contains no information which would not fall more appropriatly under the heading "Islam and Judaism" (overlap). The title "Islam and Antisemitism" is inherently incapable of giving rise to an article that meets the WP:NPOV criteria, appearing to be essentially a fork for discussing the ways in which Islam is alleged to be antisemitic.
I not that the article was nominated for deletion way back in 2006. I make no accusations against any particular editior, but it looks to me like it may have been saved from deletion on that occasion by CAMERA. -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
i support a merge. any useful information here would be better represented in the Islam_and_Judaism article. this pov fork apparently has no hope of becoming a balanced article. untwirl( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The nub of the problem which occasioned my reentry is this:-
The article reads:-
'Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them.'[9]' (The source is Laqueur p.192)
The sentence is not from Al-Baqara (first error). It is a composite statement patched up from Al-Baqara 2:191 and Al-Ma'ida 5.60 by Walter Laqueur from
(a) Al-Baqara 2:191 slay them whenever you catch them. The commentators, modern and ancient cannot agree to whom this refers. It may refer to heathens. It may refer to certain groups of Christians or Jews, or both. The context suggests the advice is given to fight back against those who attack Muhammad and his followers, who had as many adversaries among heathens, Jews, Christians, Arabs, polytheists as he had friends. The second error therefore consists in asserting, against the consensus of scholarship, that the identity of 'them' is secure. The third error consists in asserting that them refers exclusively to Jews.
(b) Al-Ma'ida 5.60 contains the phrase 'the sons of apes and pigs'. Apes refers to some Jews, pigs to some Christians, apparently.
So what Laqueur has done is to take a generic statement, where them could refer to any group of people hostile to Islam, and, by an interpolation, make it say the only group referred to consists of Jews, and that here the Qur'an can be cited as justifying the slaughter of Jews wherever and whenever they are found. In other words, these words, as tampered with, are made by Laqueur to provide sacred Qur'anic authority for pogroms and even genocide. The gravity of this manipulation of a sacred text should be self-evident.
A further anomaly, Laqueur's fourth error, arising from this conflation is that the Qur'an is made to say Jews are the sons of pigs, a generic epithet in later times used in Muslim abuse not of Jews but of Christians.
In my view, Walter Laqueur, having no credentials in Arabic or Islamic studies, should not be cited as an authority on how the text of the Qur'an should be read. In Jayjg's view, he can be cited authoritatively because he is an expert on Antisemitism, one half of the topic covered by this page. Experts on antisemitism should not be cited when they are caught forging or manipulating evidence, evidence on a subject they have no professional knowledge of, moreover.
In my view, if evidence exists that the Qur'an incites its readers to slaughter Jews and Christians wherever they are found, the vast scholarship by Christian and Jewish experts on the Qur'an will have found it, and documented it. I can't find it, but if it exists, it should be referred to from an authoritative scholarly source on the subject, and absolutely not from a scholar unqualified to make such a subjective interpretation of that text. To insist this malicious misreport be left untouched only stokes suspicions that wiki pages like this are being edited to serve a partisan cause in a conflict. Everything that distracts from this is mere sand in the eyes. Nishidani ( talk) 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
For better or for worse, Nishidani, unless you can have your critique above published in a third-party journal, it is WP:OR. However, what may be appropriate is to attribute the entire sentence to Laquer, ala "According to Walter Laquere, the Quran…" -- Avi ( talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
'According to Geza Vermes (n = The Religion of Jesus the Jew, SCM Press 1993 p.18), at Matthew 8:64 Jesus enjoined his followers to follow the ritual laws of the Torah. Other scholars, such as Anthony J.Saldarini, (n = Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, The University of Chicago Press, 1994 p.177), say Jesus expressed his fidelity to biblical law at Matthew 8:1-4.'
it seems apparent that if laqueur isn't a Qur'anic expert, he shouldn't be used as a source for interpreting verses. if there are experts in the field that agree with those interpretations, they should be used as sources. if not, it should be removed altogether. untwirl( talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If Lacquer's interpretation is not supported by a significant fraction of the expert community, then it should be omitted according to the policy on fringe theories. Zero talk 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Many Jewish people/Hebrews object to the word "Jew" (or "Jews"). Jewish or Hebrew is the correct, non-offensive term. "Jew" is considered an offensive term and a racial slur.
I realize this is a bit confusing, given that even much of the source material uses "Jew", but nonetheless, it's a fact and this article should really be edited to reflect this.
Pookabun ( talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, here some criticism which, I hope, will be contructive.
The Judaism in theology section says " The conventional epithets in the qur'an are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians. ([Qur'an 2:61], [Qur'an 5:65], [Qur'an 7:166])[22] "
This is just not true: the Quran says God transformed one group of Jews into apes and swine because they transgressed the Sabbath (just read the verses cited). It has nothing to do with Christians, and they are certainly no "conventional epithets" for Jews!
If this story has any relevance in anti-semitism (I think it does, as it is sometimes (mis)used today by anti-semitic Muslims), the wording needs to be modified. Right now it sounds as if the Quran 'conventionally' refers to Jews and Christian as apes and pigs, which isn't the case.
Also, "Lewis adds, negative attributes ascribed to subject religions (in this case Judaism and Christianity) are usually expressed in religious and social terms, but very rarely in ethnic or racial terms. However, this does sometimes occur." Is there any example of the Quran insulting the Jews on the basis of their ethnicity (rather than criticizing minor points of Judaism or the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad)? I think it wouldn't even make sense, seeing that the Jews of Medina were ethnic Arabs following Judaism. I also fail to see how the Quran could possibly abuse Christians on 'ethnic or racial terms', as Christians do not constitute a race or an ethnicity.
The section on 'remarks on Jews' is terrible. It should be totally rewritten and put in order. For example, take this paragraph:
" Walter Laqueur states that the Qur'an and its interpreters has a great many conflicting things to say about the Jews. It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left ([Qur'an 8:39]). Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them. Jews are said to be treacherous and hypocritical and could never be friends with a Muslim.[8]
Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative. The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah, That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. And for their taking usury, which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people's wealth under false pretense, a painful punishment was prepared for them. The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty" in the form of the poll tax jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." Yet ordinarily, "the Jews" could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad. There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews."[7] "
It is lapidatory to to translate 'jihad' and 'jahada' in their Quranic usage as holy war; it is not 'easy' to find verses saying that "Jews and Christians should be killed" (there is only 1 instance in the 6000+ verses of the Quran that talks about fighting 'the people of the book', in the context where the Jews of Khaybar were leagued with the Meccan ennemies of the Muslims); 8:39 says the fight should continue until people desist from fighting Muslims; the mention to Al Baqara is non-sense (the passage (2:190-193) the article quotes from (out of context) is about 'fighting those who fight you' and was directed at Pagan tribes and not Jews); Jews aren't called the sons of apes and pigs; the verses about Jews being hypocritical, treacherous, incurring the wrath of God etc. aren't about all Jews but always some particular groups of Jews, in reference to Biblical stories or to the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad; God will not turn the Jews into apes, swine, idol worshippers etc. etc.
Also: "The standard Qur'anic reference to Jews is the verse [Qur'an 2:61].[27] It says: And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them, and they were laden with the burden of God's anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.[28]"
Among all the verses that talks about Jews, positively or negatively, who decides what the 'standart' Quranic reference is? The verse is, again, quoted out of context and truncated. (It talks about these men among the ancient Hebrews who were criticizing Moses about little things instead of being grateful for he had saved them from slavery in Egypt- that is not a general statement about Jews)
I think the article should be general when dealing with the Quran's stance of Jews. It suffices to say that it harshly criticizes some members of the Jewish tribes the early Muslims encountered, that it mentions Biblical stories where some Hebrews stray from the path (as in the Golden Calf tale), but that the Jewish religion in general and its porphets are given respect and even praise (and to develop these points). But if the article needs to mention in detail all that the Quran says about Hebrew history and the Jews that lived around Muhammad, then it should be done in a fair, unbiaised way. The article is generally good and balanced, but it seems someone just inserted anti-Islam POV stuff in the middle wherever he could. The rest of the section also needs to be put in order.
The 'life under Muslim rule' section needs to be expanded. I think the theory and the practice of the laws Jews were subjected to quite varied throughout the ages and from one region to another. It has to be mentioned where and when the laws listed in the article were applied, etc.
Last point: the 'sermon' section needs to be re-written. Listing all the documented events where a Muslim preacher insult Jews in a sermon isn't encyclopedic. The section should be much more general. Important anti-semitic preachers should be named (but who on earth are these Ibrahim Mahdi, Ibrahim Al-'Ali, Sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi, Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar? Is it necessary to name them and quote them, when none of them seems important enough to have a Wikipedia page on him?) and give some examples of such anti-semitic speech, but there is no need to devote so much place to the details of all instances of Muslim anti-semitic preaching. (Just go and compare to the 'post WWII anti-semitism' section of the 'Christianity and anti-semitism' page. There are only really vague references to anti-semitic stances of Christians with no detail at all, no list of quotes and preachers etc. as there is here). More importantly, what the article should show is the stance of the leading Muslim authorities and Muslim governments or head of states, instead of bombarding the reader with quotes (it's confusing). It is the importance and frequency of these sermons that needs to be analyzed, from reliable sources.
On the other hand, I think that the importance of anti-semitism among Muslims today is not emphasized enough (I believe it is quite extremely widespread).
Also, Wikipedia usually uses Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran, and the verse numbering do not always match the system Yusuf Ali uses.
This section, in its entirety, is based on primary sources, translations of speeches, and would be related to an article Antisemitic comments made by Muslims in the 21st century but I fail to see how any antisemitic comment made by a notable Muslim becomes related to Islam and antisemitism. Are there any reliable secondary sources that relate these quotes to the topic of this article? If there are not the entire section should be removed as it is developing our own argument to support a premise. nableezy - 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The vast bulk of this material comes from a pro-Israel website's "special dispatches," which simply translate and quote inflammatory comments allegedly made by various clerics in the Arab world in the context of the I/P conflict. The website in question has a established record of mistranslation and source-doctoring (no doubt endearing them to the primary authors of this article), and the fact that so few of these alleged quotations are discussed by legitimate sources is unsurprising. Nor do the "special dispatches" actually discuss the subject of this article, Islam and antisemitism. They just reproduce alleged quotes. They are "secondary sources" only in name. It would be like relying on "special dispatches" from Electronic Intifada reproducing alleged quotes from obscure rabbis about Palestinians and Arabs for an article called Judaism and Islamophobia. Exactly like that, in fact, except that Electronic Intifada doesn't have a history of source-doctoring.-- G-Dett ( talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As Jayjg has said we need to examine each source I figured this is as good a place as any. The first instance in the section has been agreed should be removed. I also challenge the following which are the same type of sources, MEMRI translations: In a separate statement on Al-Jazeera on January 30, 2009, al-Qaradawi expressed support, In a speech delivered by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Yacoub, On a religious Television program which aired on Al-Rahma TV on January 17, 2009, Egyptian cleric Sheik Said Al-'Afani, In a sermon delivered by Qatari cleric Sheik Muhammad Al-Muraikhi, On July 21, 2006 Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar, In a speech aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 11, 2009, Saudi Cleric Khaled Al-Khlewi stated that, On May 7, 2002, in a Saudi state-controlled TV station talk show entitled (a MEMRI dead link is also used for this, and is this a RS or are we just using it for the opinion of Daniel Pipes?). Do you object to the removal of these Jayjg? Or should the also be removed for the same reasons you gave above? nableezy - 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
MEMRI is used as a source throughout Wikipedia. If you have any evidence that this was mistranslated or misrepresented, feel free to present it. Second, MEMRI does not analyse, offer comments, and make remarks regarding this quote. They simple provide a translation. While MEMRI is certainly selective about what articles they translate, their translations are considered accurate. More importantly, Qaradawi made this remark on a television show (i.e. a public forum) broadcast by Al-Jazerra, which is considered a relatively open and accurate media source in the Arab World. Finally, Qaradawi's comments are certainly hostile towards Jews - this, combined with the fact that he is one of the most promnient Muslim leaders in the world (i.e. he's notable).
I understand your concern about the dead link - I am adding another link to MEMRITV. Registration is required to view the video but you can see it in full at: http://3arabtv.com/3arabtv/islam/view/-BH5SCUg3r8/Sheikh_Yousef_Al-Qaradhawi.html. I've also added links about this statement to Newsmax, the Times, and the JTA.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
A statement by an Islamic person about Jews doesn't belong in an article about Islam unless that person has a claim to represent Islam. That means he has to be someone widely considered an authority on the subject, not just some random cleric with a loose mouth. I wonder if anyone here can honestly claim to have ever heard of most of these quotees before. Zero talk 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
But if responsible study of secondary sources in order to ensure precise, unequivocal and accurate information in wiki's neutral voice gets onto the page means one must, once more, be hauled back into the rather obtusely bureaucratic gamespeopleplay world of wiki, where everybody appears to prefer cavilling over the elementary rules of composition instead of actually reading up on the topic of an article, then it's not for me. I've had to wear this sort of attrition on the Israel Shahak article, where the rules have been used for 5 years to stop the page being written. By nature I am neither a masochist, nor by profession, someone who wants to waste his time in small chat over casuistics. Disgraceful really. . A parting word. Jay, you're in a patent WP:COI in defending bad scholarship that just happens to make Islam look like its foundational text incites to genocide of the Jews, and it stands out like dog's balls. I think Arbcom sanctions here apply, and since no one on Arbcom will enforce them on you, there is no reason I should not simply read them as I have, until the recent review, i.e. that my right to edit these areas, even if borderline, has been withdrawn. It's none of my business if you can get away with nibbling at the border. Goodbye. Nishidani ( talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How is this article different from Antisemitism in the Arab world (which used to have the faintly comical title Arabs and antisemitism)? Just wondering. Yeah, I know there are Muslims beyond the borders of "the Arab world." But it's not like this article's big into Indonesia or anything. Besides say, the two-sentence section on Iran, I don't see how these two articles' purviews aren't basically identical.-- G-Dett ( talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the past but bears repeating. For something not to be OR a secondary source discussing a quote and relating it to the topic of this article (Islam and antisemitism) is needed. A MEMRI clip is not a secondary source and not everything a Muslim says has to do with Islam. nableezy - 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting your edits. While you are correct that not everything a Muslim says has to do with Islam, all of the quotes are attributed to Muslim leaders (e.g. Imans, scholars, political figures). An MEMRI clip is a secondary source - MEMRI is an organization it provides translations of statements from across the Islamic world. Yes, MEMRI is partisan, but their translations and analysis are accurate. Furthermore, the quotes are cited to show that anti-semitism does exist in the Islamic world. ( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 17:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
These quotes are from leading Muslim religious leaders who have made anti-semitic comments on national (or international) television programs. Explain how that is not relevant to Islam and Anti-semitism? With regard to your claim of original research, these quotes are citing from a secondary source - MEMRI - which is a research institute which translates these clips and makes them easy to access. If a wikipedia editor was translating and citing these clips through their individual research and translation, that would be Original Research. However, citing material from a third party research institute is not original research.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 18:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
which are subsequently translated by a research organization (MEMRI)
does not say one word about Islam. The entire relation to Islam is that a Muslim said it. This is a bit like putting any racist comment any white person has said in an article on White supremacy. Or for that matter including any racist statement any Jew has said in an article on Judaism and racism. Finally, the issue of original research. Can you please show me what source relates these comments to Islam and antisemitism? If no reliable secondary source does so it is original research for you to do so on Wikipedia. nableezy - 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)"Never have I seen a single verse, paragraph, or sentence in the Torah which calls for peace. Everything in the Torah constitutes a call for war. They even call God "Lord of Hosts" – they don't call Him "Lord of the Universe" or "the Compassionate, the Merciful...[The Torah contains] the notion of annihilation. We saw it when the Europeans went to America – they tried to annihilate the Indians. When they went to Australia, they tried to annihilate the aboriginal people. Indeed, they annihilated them. This is a biblical notion – annihilate them totally, do not leave a living soul among them.
Once again, you have missed the point. The quote you cited above was by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Muslim scholar and Islamist preacher, with his own television show (ash-Shariah wal-Hayat) ("Shariah and Life") on Al Jazeera. He has also published more than 80 books, including The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam and Islam: The Future Civilization. He is the winner of eight international prizes for his scholarly contributions and is considered one of the most influential Islamic scholars living today. In other words, he is a promenient and respected figure in the Islamic world - which is why his comments are relevant to Islam and Anti-semitism.
Thus, as I already explained, these quotes are not from just any person (i.e. random people off the street or a online chat room) but rather from leading religious figures in the Islam world that were made on national/international television. MEMRI has researched statements by Islamic leaders that involve anti-semitism and have posted them in an easy to understand format. MEMRI (rather than an individual wiki editor) has done this research.
Finally, if you want to quote Jewish religious figures who have made intolerate comments, feel free to do so (as long as they are properly sourced). I've never argued against that.
I am willing to consider that some of the people quoted are not signficant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. But an outright deletion of all of these quotes is not acceptable.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
Since we arent getting anywhere here, Ive taken my concerns to the OR noticeboard here. nableezy - 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
MEMRI has researched and accumlated this material and presented it for others to view. For more of their research, I recommend viewing some of its specific studies such as Antisemitic Statements and Cartoons in Wake of Gaza War, which analysises antisemitic statements made by Muslim and arab leaders following the 2008-2009 Gaza War (the specific video clips of the quotations have been cited for convenience). MEMRI is a valid secondary source because it does its own research and analysis.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
I am trying to understand this. Here is quote from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a Ben Cohen: - "Mindful of the importance of the Muslim vote in London, Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, offered his hospitality to the Egyptian Muslim cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who visited the British capital in July 2004. Despite being confronted with Al Qaradawi's anti-Semitic pronouncements - he has declared, for example, that there can be no dialogue with Jews "except by the sword and the rifle"33" -
[1] the note 33 is from Memri. Would something like this qualify as not OR? To me it ties in both the Islam aspect and the anti-Semitic aspect.
JuJubird (
talk)
19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also this from
Robert Spencer -
on Fawzi Jabar Mr Spencer refers to it as "his vile and genocidal anti-Semitism."
JuJubird (
talk)
19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
When recoginzed and praised Muslim leaders make anti-semitic comments on international television while using religious language and scripture to justify these remarks, it is certainly relevant to Islam and Antisemitism. You are right that Jihadwatch is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, which is why I have not cited it in this article.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC))
I disagree. Qaradawi is making specific remarks about the Torah and refers to it as a call for war. How does that not relate to Islam and Anti-semitism? There is no doubt that Qaradawi made this statement and the context provided by the MEMRI citation indicates that the statement is anti-semitic (or at the very least, extremely critical of holy book of the Jews).( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC))
He's stated (in no unclear language) that the holy book of the Jews (the Torah) is a call for war. Please explain how that is not anti-semitic?( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC))
I will agree to remove the quote regarding Al-Qaradawi statements on the Torah. However, I will point out that if a person were to make similar statements about the Koran, they would certainly be labeled as islamphobic. However, the remaining quotes that were deleted have not been discussed, and therefore were removed prematurely.
But furthermore, the remaining quotes that have been deleted have not been questioned by any of the other editors. Removing them simply because they are sourced from MEMRI is not an acceptable excuse. I will accept arguments as to why the removed statements are not anti-semitic in nature and intent, or if any them are false, misrepresented or improperly sourced.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC))
MEMRI is a research institute that specializes in documenting anti-semitism in the Islamic world. Citing MEMRI research is not OR. Now, if you want, we could change the title of this section from "Antisemitic comments by Muslim Leaders and Scholars" to something more neutral like "Statements on Jews by Muslim Leaders and Scholars". ( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC))
Not much emphasis is given to the different interpretations of the two terms, Jews and Children of Israel. Many scholars have given the distinction that the term Jew refers to specific types within the Jewish people; either as being originally from Judea, not following the commandments God bestowed on them, or specifically "militant zealots" which fought the Roman Empire. [2] I believe there is much to explore there which deserves a section by itself and even the editing of the whole article to reflect such a distinction. Approsemite ( talk) 05:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article headed with a link to a Wikipedia entry for Anders Behring Breivik?
Nuttyskin ( talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The article fails to make an important distinction that most of the scholars that are quoted do make, and hence present their views in a misleading way. In the introduction to the article anti-Semitism is defined as hatred of Jews, but when most of the scholars that are quoted refer to anti-Semitism they strictly discuss anti-Semitism in the European and Christian senses of the word. When Bernard Lewis, for example, makes the point that anti-Semitism was introduced to the Middle East in the 19th century, he refers to European anti-Semitism, not to anti-Semitism as the article defines it (Jew hatred). When he discusses Jew-hatred, he actually makes the point it existed throughout Muslim history. This confusion between anti-Semitism as Jew-hatred to European anti-Semitism is hence misleading the readers and presents the scholars views in an un-authentic way throughout the article. Ben tetuan ( talk) 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This article's is very heavily biased against Islam and Muslims. Its tone is not objective. And its use of selective sources is worrisome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxq3r9 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
In the Quran section where the Quranic verses are cited, the article states:
"And remember, Children of Israel, when We made a covenant with you and raised Mount Sinai before you saying, "Hold tightly to what We have revealed to you and keep it in mind so that you may guard against evil. But then you turned away, and if it had not been for Allah's grace and merecy, you surely would have been among the lost. And you know those among who sinned on the Sabbath. We said to them, "You will be transformed into despised apes."
The source given is http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.063. However. The source itself gives a completely different translation than the one used in the article. The sources states:
002.065 YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." PICKTHAL: And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! SHAKIR: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
No where is "transformed" ever mentioned. In this verse, as the three translations make clear the Quran is not saying that the people who "transgressed on the matter of the Sabbath" were to be transformed into apes but the speaker is expressing anger at those who "transgressed."
So this matter of Muslims thinking Jews will be transformed into apes is based on a false translation, a fabrication. Finally, when the author of the article states that, "The accusation that Jews will ultimately be transformed into apes and pigs is traditionally understood literally[citation needed] and is derived from such Quranic and other early Muslim sources," he cites no sources. Which would imply that this is indeed a fabrication meant to malign Muslims and/or Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxq3r9 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Alfred Dreyfus received support in the Arab press; Mendel Beilis was given a "hero's" welcome in Jerusalem by the Muslim religious leadership after Beilis left Russia in the teens of the 20th century -- this was mentioned in his autobiographical work, The Story of my suffering.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 14:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The tag is dated November 2013 but all I see in the archives are two posts by the tagging editor who stopped editing right after. Is there anyone who feels the tag should remain? -- NeilN talk to me 04:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
...because if we were to include every antisemitic thing said by a notable Muslim (or Muslim leader), Wikipedia would need to upgrade its storage servers. It's been brought up before multiple times, but should we discuss scope of this article? I personally think this should be about Islam and antisemitism rather than Muslims and antisemitism, so you know, just stick to things in Islam's history, teachings, etc. rather than quote random imams here and there.
Cheers, Λuα ( Operibus anteire) 13:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Islam and antisemitism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
I have changed them to:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Islam and antisemitism %(counter)d
}}
Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 4.4 KB Gregkaye ( talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence "Islam and antisemitism relates to Islamic theological teaching against Jews and Judaism and the treatment of Jews in Muslim countries." Someone recently changed "against" to "with regards to", and someone reverted.
This mini-dispute illustrates the fundamental problem with this page. The title in principle allows the article to be balanced by pro-Jewish or anti-antisemitic words/actions of Muslims, but right from the start this article has been a cherry-picked collection of quotations and anecdotes without the slightest attempt at balance. That this is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV would be obvious to any impartial observer. Zero talk 04:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Do we have have anything like a central article that focusses particularly on:
Neither this article nor the one on Antisemitism in the Arab world seem to be quite right for that. -- 87.180.197.207 ( talk) 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Another hadith says: "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."[42] According to another hadith, Muhammad said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'".(Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:177) This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54] And then the link goes to a page in a book by Walter Laqueur. The link should be made directly to pertinent information within the Hamas charter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.135.126 ( talk • contribs) 8 September 2009
The whole article is written based on the Sunni hadith and references. Both, Sunnis and Shias have different view on the Jewish people that was summoned here [3]. All hadith presented in this article are not accepted by the Shia muslims.
1) Add subsection on Muslim sources that use Quranic verses to preach tolerance of Jews.
2) In the subsection Western academic analysis of the Quran
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I've elided the 'however' that gave rise to Jayjg's impression I was making a counter argument, where I was using the word epexegetically. I apologize for the ambiguity. As it stands, the three further sources, independent one of the other, throw further detail on what Lewis and Laqueur refer to.
I've added a further source for the Yahud/Ban'i Israel distinction. Apparently the former is negative, the latter positive, an important point.
This edit, like some others I have made, draws on work that does not deal specifically with the combined theme 'Islam and antisemitism'. In the lead, the subject to be treated is defined thus:-
'Islam and antisemitism looks at the teaching of Islam relating to Jews and Judaism and the attitudes of the Muslim world in history to Jews as a people, and the treatment of Jews in Muslim countries.
My work so far looks at the teaching of Islam relating to Jews and Judaism, not as yet to the second part (which deals with the modern inflections of antisemitism on traditional Muslim prejudices). As I found the text, it was very poorly documented for islamic teachings on Jews and Judaism, and thus falls short of one of the two requirements stipulated in the lead. Since the Qur'an is the foundational text for Muslim views, and has been held responsible for the nature of Jewish-Muslim tensions, it seems to me obvious that slightly more attention be given, via the best academic sources on Qur'anic images of the Jews, to the background.
In general this article is poorly organized (the 5 positions outlined define positions by scholars, for example. Several of those scholars share the same perspective. If dealt with thematically, you would get an overview with two, at most three, points, not five, and certainly not bulletted, which give the mistaken impression that many of these scholars hold different views. They don't.)
All I am interested in at the moment is providing a larger range of references for the issues already present in the text before I began to edit. There is a large amount of reduplication because comments are organized not by theme, but by scholars: again, poor practice. I hope future editors will agree that, as organized so far, the article needs considerable restructuring. That is not something I have time to do. Nishidani ( talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
For the casual reader: of the five sources Jayjg questioned, three are readily accessible online and all three explicitly address Islam and antisemitism. I'm in the process of checking the other two. This and related threads appear to be nothing more than an obstructionist bluff on Jayjg's part.-- G-Dett ( talk) 06:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article to be merged with Islam_and_Judaism. In my view, it contains no information which would not fall more appropriatly under the heading "Islam and Judaism" (overlap). The title "Islam and Antisemitism" is inherently incapable of giving rise to an article that meets the WP:NPOV criteria, appearing to be essentially a fork for discussing the ways in which Islam is alleged to be antisemitic.
I not that the article was nominated for deletion way back in 2006. I make no accusations against any particular editior, but it looks to me like it may have been saved from deletion on that occasion by CAMERA. -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
i support a merge. any useful information here would be better represented in the Islam_and_Judaism article. this pov fork apparently has no hope of becoming a balanced article. untwirl( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The nub of the problem which occasioned my reentry is this:-
The article reads:-
'Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them.'[9]' (The source is Laqueur p.192)
The sentence is not from Al-Baqara (first error). It is a composite statement patched up from Al-Baqara 2:191 and Al-Ma'ida 5.60 by Walter Laqueur from
(a) Al-Baqara 2:191 slay them whenever you catch them. The commentators, modern and ancient cannot agree to whom this refers. It may refer to heathens. It may refer to certain groups of Christians or Jews, or both. The context suggests the advice is given to fight back against those who attack Muhammad and his followers, who had as many adversaries among heathens, Jews, Christians, Arabs, polytheists as he had friends. The second error therefore consists in asserting, against the consensus of scholarship, that the identity of 'them' is secure. The third error consists in asserting that them refers exclusively to Jews.
(b) Al-Ma'ida 5.60 contains the phrase 'the sons of apes and pigs'. Apes refers to some Jews, pigs to some Christians, apparently.
So what Laqueur has done is to take a generic statement, where them could refer to any group of people hostile to Islam, and, by an interpolation, make it say the only group referred to consists of Jews, and that here the Qur'an can be cited as justifying the slaughter of Jews wherever and whenever they are found. In other words, these words, as tampered with, are made by Laqueur to provide sacred Qur'anic authority for pogroms and even genocide. The gravity of this manipulation of a sacred text should be self-evident.
A further anomaly, Laqueur's fourth error, arising from this conflation is that the Qur'an is made to say Jews are the sons of pigs, a generic epithet in later times used in Muslim abuse not of Jews but of Christians.
In my view, Walter Laqueur, having no credentials in Arabic or Islamic studies, should not be cited as an authority on how the text of the Qur'an should be read. In Jayjg's view, he can be cited authoritatively because he is an expert on Antisemitism, one half of the topic covered by this page. Experts on antisemitism should not be cited when they are caught forging or manipulating evidence, evidence on a subject they have no professional knowledge of, moreover.
In my view, if evidence exists that the Qur'an incites its readers to slaughter Jews and Christians wherever they are found, the vast scholarship by Christian and Jewish experts on the Qur'an will have found it, and documented it. I can't find it, but if it exists, it should be referred to from an authoritative scholarly source on the subject, and absolutely not from a scholar unqualified to make such a subjective interpretation of that text. To insist this malicious misreport be left untouched only stokes suspicions that wiki pages like this are being edited to serve a partisan cause in a conflict. Everything that distracts from this is mere sand in the eyes. Nishidani ( talk) 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
For better or for worse, Nishidani, unless you can have your critique above published in a third-party journal, it is WP:OR. However, what may be appropriate is to attribute the entire sentence to Laquer, ala "According to Walter Laquere, the Quran…" -- Avi ( talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
'According to Geza Vermes (n = The Religion of Jesus the Jew, SCM Press 1993 p.18), at Matthew 8:64 Jesus enjoined his followers to follow the ritual laws of the Torah. Other scholars, such as Anthony J.Saldarini, (n = Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, The University of Chicago Press, 1994 p.177), say Jesus expressed his fidelity to biblical law at Matthew 8:1-4.'
it seems apparent that if laqueur isn't a Qur'anic expert, he shouldn't be used as a source for interpreting verses. if there are experts in the field that agree with those interpretations, they should be used as sources. if not, it should be removed altogether. untwirl( talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If Lacquer's interpretation is not supported by a significant fraction of the expert community, then it should be omitted according to the policy on fringe theories. Zero talk 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Many Jewish people/Hebrews object to the word "Jew" (or "Jews"). Jewish or Hebrew is the correct, non-offensive term. "Jew" is considered an offensive term and a racial slur.
I realize this is a bit confusing, given that even much of the source material uses "Jew", but nonetheless, it's a fact and this article should really be edited to reflect this.
Pookabun ( talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, here some criticism which, I hope, will be contructive.
The Judaism in theology section says " The conventional epithets in the qur'an are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians. ([Qur'an 2:61], [Qur'an 5:65], [Qur'an 7:166])[22] "
This is just not true: the Quran says God transformed one group of Jews into apes and swine because they transgressed the Sabbath (just read the verses cited). It has nothing to do with Christians, and they are certainly no "conventional epithets" for Jews!
If this story has any relevance in anti-semitism (I think it does, as it is sometimes (mis)used today by anti-semitic Muslims), the wording needs to be modified. Right now it sounds as if the Quran 'conventionally' refers to Jews and Christian as apes and pigs, which isn't the case.
Also, "Lewis adds, negative attributes ascribed to subject religions (in this case Judaism and Christianity) are usually expressed in religious and social terms, but very rarely in ethnic or racial terms. However, this does sometimes occur." Is there any example of the Quran insulting the Jews on the basis of their ethnicity (rather than criticizing minor points of Judaism or the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad)? I think it wouldn't even make sense, seeing that the Jews of Medina were ethnic Arabs following Judaism. I also fail to see how the Quran could possibly abuse Christians on 'ethnic or racial terms', as Christians do not constitute a race or an ethnicity.
The section on 'remarks on Jews' is terrible. It should be totally rewritten and put in order. For example, take this paragraph:
" Walter Laqueur states that the Qur'an and its interpreters has a great many conflicting things to say about the Jews. It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left ([Qur'an 8:39]). Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them. Jews are said to be treacherous and hypocritical and could never be friends with a Muslim.[8]
Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative. The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah, That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. And for their taking usury, which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people's wealth under false pretense, a painful punishment was prepared for them. The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty" in the form of the poll tax jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." Yet ordinarily, "the Jews" could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad. There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews."[7] "
It is lapidatory to to translate 'jihad' and 'jahada' in their Quranic usage as holy war; it is not 'easy' to find verses saying that "Jews and Christians should be killed" (there is only 1 instance in the 6000+ verses of the Quran that talks about fighting 'the people of the book', in the context where the Jews of Khaybar were leagued with the Meccan ennemies of the Muslims); 8:39 says the fight should continue until people desist from fighting Muslims; the mention to Al Baqara is non-sense (the passage (2:190-193) the article quotes from (out of context) is about 'fighting those who fight you' and was directed at Pagan tribes and not Jews); Jews aren't called the sons of apes and pigs; the verses about Jews being hypocritical, treacherous, incurring the wrath of God etc. aren't about all Jews but always some particular groups of Jews, in reference to Biblical stories or to the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad; God will not turn the Jews into apes, swine, idol worshippers etc. etc.
Also: "The standard Qur'anic reference to Jews is the verse [Qur'an 2:61].[27] It says: And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them, and they were laden with the burden of God's anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.[28]"
Among all the verses that talks about Jews, positively or negatively, who decides what the 'standart' Quranic reference is? The verse is, again, quoted out of context and truncated. (It talks about these men among the ancient Hebrews who were criticizing Moses about little things instead of being grateful for he had saved them from slavery in Egypt- that is not a general statement about Jews)
I think the article should be general when dealing with the Quran's stance of Jews. It suffices to say that it harshly criticizes some members of the Jewish tribes the early Muslims encountered, that it mentions Biblical stories where some Hebrews stray from the path (as in the Golden Calf tale), but that the Jewish religion in general and its porphets are given respect and even praise (and to develop these points). But if the article needs to mention in detail all that the Quran says about Hebrew history and the Jews that lived around Muhammad, then it should be done in a fair, unbiaised way. The article is generally good and balanced, but it seems someone just inserted anti-Islam POV stuff in the middle wherever he could. The rest of the section also needs to be put in order.
The 'life under Muslim rule' section needs to be expanded. I think the theory and the practice of the laws Jews were subjected to quite varied throughout the ages and from one region to another. It has to be mentioned where and when the laws listed in the article were applied, etc.
Last point: the 'sermon' section needs to be re-written. Listing all the documented events where a Muslim preacher insult Jews in a sermon isn't encyclopedic. The section should be much more general. Important anti-semitic preachers should be named (but who on earth are these Ibrahim Mahdi, Ibrahim Al-'Ali, Sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi, Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar? Is it necessary to name them and quote them, when none of them seems important enough to have a Wikipedia page on him?) and give some examples of such anti-semitic speech, but there is no need to devote so much place to the details of all instances of Muslim anti-semitic preaching. (Just go and compare to the 'post WWII anti-semitism' section of the 'Christianity and anti-semitism' page. There are only really vague references to anti-semitic stances of Christians with no detail at all, no list of quotes and preachers etc. as there is here). More importantly, what the article should show is the stance of the leading Muslim authorities and Muslim governments or head of states, instead of bombarding the reader with quotes (it's confusing). It is the importance and frequency of these sermons that needs to be analyzed, from reliable sources.
On the other hand, I think that the importance of anti-semitism among Muslims today is not emphasized enough (I believe it is quite extremely widespread).
Also, Wikipedia usually uses Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran, and the verse numbering do not always match the system Yusuf Ali uses.
This section, in its entirety, is based on primary sources, translations of speeches, and would be related to an article Antisemitic comments made by Muslims in the 21st century but I fail to see how any antisemitic comment made by a notable Muslim becomes related to Islam and antisemitism. Are there any reliable secondary sources that relate these quotes to the topic of this article? If there are not the entire section should be removed as it is developing our own argument to support a premise. nableezy - 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The vast bulk of this material comes from a pro-Israel website's "special dispatches," which simply translate and quote inflammatory comments allegedly made by various clerics in the Arab world in the context of the I/P conflict. The website in question has a established record of mistranslation and source-doctoring (no doubt endearing them to the primary authors of this article), and the fact that so few of these alleged quotations are discussed by legitimate sources is unsurprising. Nor do the "special dispatches" actually discuss the subject of this article, Islam and antisemitism. They just reproduce alleged quotes. They are "secondary sources" only in name. It would be like relying on "special dispatches" from Electronic Intifada reproducing alleged quotes from obscure rabbis about Palestinians and Arabs for an article called Judaism and Islamophobia. Exactly like that, in fact, except that Electronic Intifada doesn't have a history of source-doctoring.-- G-Dett ( talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As Jayjg has said we need to examine each source I figured this is as good a place as any. The first instance in the section has been agreed should be removed. I also challenge the following which are the same type of sources, MEMRI translations: In a separate statement on Al-Jazeera on January 30, 2009, al-Qaradawi expressed support, In a speech delivered by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Yacoub, On a religious Television program which aired on Al-Rahma TV on January 17, 2009, Egyptian cleric Sheik Said Al-'Afani, In a sermon delivered by Qatari cleric Sheik Muhammad Al-Muraikhi, On July 21, 2006 Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar, In a speech aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 11, 2009, Saudi Cleric Khaled Al-Khlewi stated that, On May 7, 2002, in a Saudi state-controlled TV station talk show entitled (a MEMRI dead link is also used for this, and is this a RS or are we just using it for the opinion of Daniel Pipes?). Do you object to the removal of these Jayjg? Or should the also be removed for the same reasons you gave above? nableezy - 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
MEMRI is used as a source throughout Wikipedia. If you have any evidence that this was mistranslated or misrepresented, feel free to present it. Second, MEMRI does not analyse, offer comments, and make remarks regarding this quote. They simple provide a translation. While MEMRI is certainly selective about what articles they translate, their translations are considered accurate. More importantly, Qaradawi made this remark on a television show (i.e. a public forum) broadcast by Al-Jazerra, which is considered a relatively open and accurate media source in the Arab World. Finally, Qaradawi's comments are certainly hostile towards Jews - this, combined with the fact that he is one of the most promnient Muslim leaders in the world (i.e. he's notable).
I understand your concern about the dead link - I am adding another link to MEMRITV. Registration is required to view the video but you can see it in full at: http://3arabtv.com/3arabtv/islam/view/-BH5SCUg3r8/Sheikh_Yousef_Al-Qaradhawi.html. I've also added links about this statement to Newsmax, the Times, and the JTA.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
A statement by an Islamic person about Jews doesn't belong in an article about Islam unless that person has a claim to represent Islam. That means he has to be someone widely considered an authority on the subject, not just some random cleric with a loose mouth. I wonder if anyone here can honestly claim to have ever heard of most of these quotees before. Zero talk 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
But if responsible study of secondary sources in order to ensure precise, unequivocal and accurate information in wiki's neutral voice gets onto the page means one must, once more, be hauled back into the rather obtusely bureaucratic gamespeopleplay world of wiki, where everybody appears to prefer cavilling over the elementary rules of composition instead of actually reading up on the topic of an article, then it's not for me. I've had to wear this sort of attrition on the Israel Shahak article, where the rules have been used for 5 years to stop the page being written. By nature I am neither a masochist, nor by profession, someone who wants to waste his time in small chat over casuistics. Disgraceful really. . A parting word. Jay, you're in a patent WP:COI in defending bad scholarship that just happens to make Islam look like its foundational text incites to genocide of the Jews, and it stands out like dog's balls. I think Arbcom sanctions here apply, and since no one on Arbcom will enforce them on you, there is no reason I should not simply read them as I have, until the recent review, i.e. that my right to edit these areas, even if borderline, has been withdrawn. It's none of my business if you can get away with nibbling at the border. Goodbye. Nishidani ( talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How is this article different from Antisemitism in the Arab world (which used to have the faintly comical title Arabs and antisemitism)? Just wondering. Yeah, I know there are Muslims beyond the borders of "the Arab world." But it's not like this article's big into Indonesia or anything. Besides say, the two-sentence section on Iran, I don't see how these two articles' purviews aren't basically identical.-- G-Dett ( talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the past but bears repeating. For something not to be OR a secondary source discussing a quote and relating it to the topic of this article (Islam and antisemitism) is needed. A MEMRI clip is not a secondary source and not everything a Muslim says has to do with Islam. nableezy - 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting your edits. While you are correct that not everything a Muslim says has to do with Islam, all of the quotes are attributed to Muslim leaders (e.g. Imans, scholars, political figures). An MEMRI clip is a secondary source - MEMRI is an organization it provides translations of statements from across the Islamic world. Yes, MEMRI is partisan, but their translations and analysis are accurate. Furthermore, the quotes are cited to show that anti-semitism does exist in the Islamic world. ( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 17:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
These quotes are from leading Muslim religious leaders who have made anti-semitic comments on national (or international) television programs. Explain how that is not relevant to Islam and Anti-semitism? With regard to your claim of original research, these quotes are citing from a secondary source - MEMRI - which is a research institute which translates these clips and makes them easy to access. If a wikipedia editor was translating and citing these clips through their individual research and translation, that would be Original Research. However, citing material from a third party research institute is not original research.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 18:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
which are subsequently translated by a research organization (MEMRI)
does not say one word about Islam. The entire relation to Islam is that a Muslim said it. This is a bit like putting any racist comment any white person has said in an article on White supremacy. Or for that matter including any racist statement any Jew has said in an article on Judaism and racism. Finally, the issue of original research. Can you please show me what source relates these comments to Islam and antisemitism? If no reliable secondary source does so it is original research for you to do so on Wikipedia. nableezy - 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)"Never have I seen a single verse, paragraph, or sentence in the Torah which calls for peace. Everything in the Torah constitutes a call for war. They even call God "Lord of Hosts" – they don't call Him "Lord of the Universe" or "the Compassionate, the Merciful...[The Torah contains] the notion of annihilation. We saw it when the Europeans went to America – they tried to annihilate the Indians. When they went to Australia, they tried to annihilate the aboriginal people. Indeed, they annihilated them. This is a biblical notion – annihilate them totally, do not leave a living soul among them.
Once again, you have missed the point. The quote you cited above was by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Muslim scholar and Islamist preacher, with his own television show (ash-Shariah wal-Hayat) ("Shariah and Life") on Al Jazeera. He has also published more than 80 books, including The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam and Islam: The Future Civilization. He is the winner of eight international prizes for his scholarly contributions and is considered one of the most influential Islamic scholars living today. In other words, he is a promenient and respected figure in the Islamic world - which is why his comments are relevant to Islam and Anti-semitism.
Thus, as I already explained, these quotes are not from just any person (i.e. random people off the street or a online chat room) but rather from leading religious figures in the Islam world that were made on national/international television. MEMRI has researched statements by Islamic leaders that involve anti-semitism and have posted them in an easy to understand format. MEMRI (rather than an individual wiki editor) has done this research.
Finally, if you want to quote Jewish religious figures who have made intolerate comments, feel free to do so (as long as they are properly sourced). I've never argued against that.
I am willing to consider that some of the people quoted are not signficant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. But an outright deletion of all of these quotes is not acceptable.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
Since we arent getting anywhere here, Ive taken my concerns to the OR noticeboard here. nableezy - 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
MEMRI has researched and accumlated this material and presented it for others to view. For more of their research, I recommend viewing some of its specific studies such as Antisemitic Statements and Cartoons in Wake of Gaza War, which analysises antisemitic statements made by Muslim and arab leaders following the 2008-2009 Gaza War (the specific video clips of the quotations have been cited for convenience). MEMRI is a valid secondary source because it does its own research and analysis.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
I am trying to understand this. Here is quote from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a Ben Cohen: - "Mindful of the importance of the Muslim vote in London, Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, offered his hospitality to the Egyptian Muslim cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who visited the British capital in July 2004. Despite being confronted with Al Qaradawi's anti-Semitic pronouncements - he has declared, for example, that there can be no dialogue with Jews "except by the sword and the rifle"33" -
[1] the note 33 is from Memri. Would something like this qualify as not OR? To me it ties in both the Islam aspect and the anti-Semitic aspect.
JuJubird (
talk)
19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also this from
Robert Spencer -
on Fawzi Jabar Mr Spencer refers to it as "his vile and genocidal anti-Semitism."
JuJubird (
talk)
19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
When recoginzed and praised Muslim leaders make anti-semitic comments on international television while using religious language and scripture to justify these remarks, it is certainly relevant to Islam and Antisemitism. You are right that Jihadwatch is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, which is why I have not cited it in this article.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC))
I disagree. Qaradawi is making specific remarks about the Torah and refers to it as a call for war. How does that not relate to Islam and Anti-semitism? There is no doubt that Qaradawi made this statement and the context provided by the MEMRI citation indicates that the statement is anti-semitic (or at the very least, extremely critical of holy book of the Jews).( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 19:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC))
He's stated (in no unclear language) that the holy book of the Jews (the Torah) is a call for war. Please explain how that is not anti-semitic?( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC))
I will agree to remove the quote regarding Al-Qaradawi statements on the Torah. However, I will point out that if a person were to make similar statements about the Koran, they would certainly be labeled as islamphobic. However, the remaining quotes that were deleted have not been discussed, and therefore were removed prematurely.
But furthermore, the remaining quotes that have been deleted have not been questioned by any of the other editors. Removing them simply because they are sourced from MEMRI is not an acceptable excuse. I will accept arguments as to why the removed statements are not anti-semitic in nature and intent, or if any them are false, misrepresented or improperly sourced.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC))
MEMRI is a research institute that specializes in documenting anti-semitism in the Islamic world. Citing MEMRI research is not OR. Now, if you want, we could change the title of this section from "Antisemitic comments by Muslim Leaders and Scholars" to something more neutral like "Statements on Jews by Muslim Leaders and Scholars". ( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC))
Not much emphasis is given to the different interpretations of the two terms, Jews and Children of Israel. Many scholars have given the distinction that the term Jew refers to specific types within the Jewish people; either as being originally from Judea, not following the commandments God bestowed on them, or specifically "militant zealots" which fought the Roman Empire. [2] I believe there is much to explore there which deserves a section by itself and even the editing of the whole article to reflect such a distinction. Approsemite ( talk) 05:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article headed with a link to a Wikipedia entry for Anders Behring Breivik?
Nuttyskin ( talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The article fails to make an important distinction that most of the scholars that are quoted do make, and hence present their views in a misleading way. In the introduction to the article anti-Semitism is defined as hatred of Jews, but when most of the scholars that are quoted refer to anti-Semitism they strictly discuss anti-Semitism in the European and Christian senses of the word. When Bernard Lewis, for example, makes the point that anti-Semitism was introduced to the Middle East in the 19th century, he refers to European anti-Semitism, not to anti-Semitism as the article defines it (Jew hatred). When he discusses Jew-hatred, he actually makes the point it existed throughout Muslim history. This confusion between anti-Semitism as Jew-hatred to European anti-Semitism is hence misleading the readers and presents the scholars views in an un-authentic way throughout the article. Ben tetuan ( talk) 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This article's is very heavily biased against Islam and Muslims. Its tone is not objective. And its use of selective sources is worrisome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxq3r9 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
In the Quran section where the Quranic verses are cited, the article states:
"And remember, Children of Israel, when We made a covenant with you and raised Mount Sinai before you saying, "Hold tightly to what We have revealed to you and keep it in mind so that you may guard against evil. But then you turned away, and if it had not been for Allah's grace and merecy, you surely would have been among the lost. And you know those among who sinned on the Sabbath. We said to them, "You will be transformed into despised apes."
The source given is http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.063. However. The source itself gives a completely different translation than the one used in the article. The sources states:
002.065 YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." PICKTHAL: And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! SHAKIR: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
No where is "transformed" ever mentioned. In this verse, as the three translations make clear the Quran is not saying that the people who "transgressed on the matter of the Sabbath" were to be transformed into apes but the speaker is expressing anger at those who "transgressed."
So this matter of Muslims thinking Jews will be transformed into apes is based on a false translation, a fabrication. Finally, when the author of the article states that, "The accusation that Jews will ultimately be transformed into apes and pigs is traditionally understood literally[citation needed] and is derived from such Quranic and other early Muslim sources," he cites no sources. Which would imply that this is indeed a fabrication meant to malign Muslims and/or Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxq3r9 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Alfred Dreyfus received support in the Arab press; Mendel Beilis was given a "hero's" welcome in Jerusalem by the Muslim religious leadership after Beilis left Russia in the teens of the 20th century -- this was mentioned in his autobiographical work, The Story of my suffering.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 14:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The tag is dated November 2013 but all I see in the archives are two posts by the tagging editor who stopped editing right after. Is there anyone who feels the tag should remain? -- NeilN talk to me 04:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
...because if we were to include every antisemitic thing said by a notable Muslim (or Muslim leader), Wikipedia would need to upgrade its storage servers. It's been brought up before multiple times, but should we discuss scope of this article? I personally think this should be about Islam and antisemitism rather than Muslims and antisemitism, so you know, just stick to things in Islam's history, teachings, etc. rather than quote random imams here and there.
Cheers, Λuα ( Operibus anteire) 13:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Islam and antisemitism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
I have changed them to:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Islam and antisemitism %(counter)d
}}
Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 4.4 KB Gregkaye ( talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence "Islam and antisemitism relates to Islamic theological teaching against Jews and Judaism and the treatment of Jews in Muslim countries." Someone recently changed "against" to "with regards to", and someone reverted.
This mini-dispute illustrates the fundamental problem with this page. The title in principle allows the article to be balanced by pro-Jewish or anti-antisemitic words/actions of Muslims, but right from the start this article has been a cherry-picked collection of quotations and anecdotes without the slightest attempt at balance. That this is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV would be obvious to any impartial observer. Zero talk 04:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Do we have have anything like a central article that focusses particularly on:
Neither this article nor the one on Antisemitism in the Arab world seem to be quite right for that. -- 87.180.197.207 ( talk) 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Another hadith says: "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."[42] According to another hadith, Muhammad said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'".(Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:177) This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54] And then the link goes to a page in a book by Walter Laqueur. The link should be made directly to pertinent information within the Hamas charter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.135.126 ( talk • contribs) 8 September 2009
The whole article is written based on the Sunni hadith and references. Both, Sunnis and Shias have different view on the Jewish people that was summoned here [3]. All hadith presented in this article are not accepted by the Shia muslims.
1) Add subsection on Muslim sources that use Quranic verses to preach tolerance of Jews.
2) In the subsection Western academic analysis of the Quran