Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

TOO Biased and misleading article!

I have read the page and I am surprised that the article still exists! It contains wrong and misleading records of "history" and the page is full of "muslim hate" propagnda!". I ask wikipedia to delete this article before further people are mislead! History was written by the "western minds" who envied and hated what Islam brought to this world. Therefore, it is not good enough to repeat the insaity again and again. The person who wrote this article is either too naiive or just delibrately trying to project history and Islam "negatively". For a brief and accurate "history and relationg of Jews and Muslims" read this webpageAttitudes and relations of Jews towards early Muslims[[Queen of Sheba 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)] 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Islam should be centered out for any modern developments of anti-Semitism. It is islamophobic to imply that an entire religion can be anti-semitic because certain fundamentalists have made anti-semitic comments. If that were legitimate, Mel Gibson just made Australia an anti-semitic country. Even the declared agenda of not thinking Israel should exist does not mean they hate Jews, just that they deny Israel is a legitimate country. The title of the article is biased in and of itself. Quite frankly, the word "anti-semitic" has become such propaganda it's hardly more than an epithet.

Karen Armstrong's A History of God and "The Battle for God" negate just about everything written here. A little tidbit to show I'm not making it up:

Nobody in the new empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith; indeed, for a century after Muhammad's death, conversion was not encouraged and, in about 700, was actually forbidden by law: Muslims believed that Islam was for the Arabs as Judaism was for the sons of Jacob. As the "people of the book" (ahl al-kitab), Jews and Christians were granted religious liberty as dhimmis, protected minority groups.

A History of God, Karen Armstrong, p. 159

and in 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, the Catholic monarchs, conquered Granada. The crusades against Islam in the Middle East had failed, but at least the Muslims had been flushed out of Europe. Europe became Muslim-free in 1499. Ferdinand and Isabella then signed the Edict of Expulsion, designed to rid Spain of its Jews. Many Jews were so attached to "al-Andalus" (as the old Muslim kingdom had been called) that they converted to Christianity, but about 80,000 Jews crossed the border into Portugal, while 50, 000 fled to the new Muslim Ottoman empire, where they were given a warm welcome.

precis A Battle for God, The History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong, p. 3 A nomaly 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

HAMADEHA: I agree!!! This is the most biased garbage i have ever read on wikipedia!!! I am so offended by this that i am thinking of starting my own page. First of all, the quran states that Judaism is not an enemy but a friend. They are reffered to as the people of the book, which is a generous an warm praise. There is no shift in tone in the quran because mohammed was rejected by the jews!!! That is the stupidest thing i have ever read. Whoever wrote this article has never even opened a quran. Someone needs to remove this bias...

Karen Armstrong is an Islamic propagandist. Her statistics have no sources, her quotes are not attibuted to any individual. For example, on page 386 of "Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths" she states:

"By March 1948, 70 Jews and 230 Arabs had been killed in the fighting around Jerusalem even before the official expiration of the British Mandate."

She gives no source for the statistic, provides no footnote. The actual number of Jews killed through February was roughly 1,500, according to the Palestine Post. Her figure of 70 dead was exceeded by two bomb blasts she never mentions, at Ben Yehuda Street and at the Palestine Post itself.

Armstrong seems to have written the book from a clean desk, without consulting anything, and simply went to work with the thesis, "Jews Bad, Muslims Good".

Of course Arabs and Arabists like her work. It's pure propagandaScott Adler 11:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Too simplistic

This whole article is very poorly written. Ask yourself this; does it contain sufficient levels of balance, research, and expertise to warrant publication in print? The answer is an emphatic no. Even if it were submitted as an essay or paper for a student class, I suspect it would be marked poorly. Why? Because this is a complex subject served up in a simplistic manner (note: I said simplistic, not simplified), but it's also obvious that the writer of the piece has a definite viewpoint that he or she is determined to pursue.

The choice of quotes in the article are devoid of any wider context and are thus quite meaningless (they also serve to amplify the obvious bias of the writer). Imagine if I were to write an article about Israeli views of Palestinian's and I collected the most inflammatory comments I could find from Israeli's and then published them, thus giving a false impression that they were representative of Israeli's as a whole.

Once again, Wikipedia proves that far from being an authoritative source of information for the internet community, it is in fact a holding place for any misinformed, uninformed and just plain biased views. [A.M.H.]

not wanting to follow 5:32? wether it be to subjugate non-followers or kill them (transcript of modern clerical speech/incitation for revolt) it IS written in the koran, you cannot deny it. as a devout follower of christian faith i have no problem following my book to the letter, why cant you follow yours? is it because you can see that your book wants you to do bad things to others, that it derives its principles upon those written before? Muhammhed took pages from the torah and lessons he liked to suit his needs. the stories are shorter that you may draw your own conclusions. now whose book is corrupt?

That thing at the end about "Hug a jew" was probably a reference to this article on the MWU site which I linked to.

Read semitic. Then you'll understand that it is stupid to say Islam can be anti-semitic: Arabic people are a semitic people!

It doesn't matter. Please read anti-Semitism. This is FAQ. --Humus sapiens Talk 03:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AAAAAAAARG!!! Fix it please!

This article is highly biased against Islam. It doesn't provide any evidence other than references to obscure authors (that might or might have not existed), and biased interpretations of selected verses of the Koran, the Holy Book.

Really? At the time you wrote this, this article was empty. So just what are you talking about? RK

I would like to remind people that the only serious references that should be used in a serious article should be the ones that are accepted by the majority of muslim scholars (a good starting point is the Al-Azhar University in Cairo). Let me just add this point to illustrate my point. It would not be serious to have a non-Jew commenting on the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a serious encyclopedia, because it is a subject in which Jews are the first concerned, and they can easily provide clear arguments of why such a document should not be taken seriously. At the same time, regarding Islam, I would suggest to let muslim scholars deal with the subject. Thank you.

My goodness. This is the most terrible and intellectually dishonest rant I have seen this month on Wikipedia. Only Jews can contribute scholarship about Jews? Only Muslims about Muslims? And presumably on Chrisitans about Christianity, and only atheists about atheism? If we were to adopt this line of thinking, Wikipedia would be dead, and most academic journals would literally be forced to stop poublishing. What I find most distressing about your screed is that you literally provided zero examples of what you found to be errorneous, and you didn't offer a single useful suggestion for others to work with. That is trolling, and not appreciated. RK

Response to RK: My general impression is that most people who talk about Islam have no idea what they are talking about. They just put together sparse information they gather about the supposed anti-semitism of hand-picked islamic writings. My point is the following: at least muslim scholars know what they are talking about. My second point is the following: you would never find a non-Jew commenting on jewish writings, because they would definitely be considered anti-semitic. I think I have said enough on this subject. Thank you for your attention.

This is mistaken. There are plenty of non-Jews who have research on Jewish history, and have done analysis on the Jewish Bible, and even done writings on rabbinic Jewish literature. Further, these writings are not considered anti-Semitic. I own some articles on Jewish issues written by non-Jews myself, and so do some rabbis I know! RK

After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed, he said that "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures." (XCVIII: The Proof: 6-7)

This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this? Martin

The problem is that the current article on Islam's concept of the People of the book is misleading. It does not represent traditional Muslim views, nor does it represent modern scholarship. The truth is that the Quran, contrary to what Islamic apologists claim, does not present a consistent picture of Jews and Christians. Some sections promote tolerance, but other sections promote discrimination, or even hatred. The current entry is dishonest because it selectively quotes only those parts which makes Islam look to modern, PC and pluralistic, and refuses to even mention the rest. Current Wikipedia entries on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are much fair and NPOV. RK

Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians. RK

"O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers (non-Muslims) who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Koran 9:123)

"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Koran 5:51)

"O ye who believe! Take not for friends Unbelievers (non-Muslims) rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (Koran 4:144)

"Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers (non-Muslims). Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide." (Koran 5:80)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)

Martin writes "This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this?"

See the link below. It will answer your question. The short answer is this: Early verses in the Quran promote tolerance, later verses promote intolerance and hatred.

Given this hot-and-cold pattern of dealing with Jews and Christians, who then are the “unbelievers” in the Qur’an? Unbelievers are those who reject the truth of Islam. “And yet the unbelievers [persist] in rejecting [the truth]!“16 The “unbelievers” include atheists, in addition to Jews, Christians, or any non-Muslims who persistently reject Islam: “Do not the unbelievers17 see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”18

The Qur’an consistently identifies these unbelievers in other places:

“Verily ye [unbelievers],19 and the [false] gods that ye worship besides Allah, are [but] fuel for hell! To it will ye [surely] come!”20

“If anyone invokes, besides Allah, any other god, he has no authority therefore; and his reckoning will be only with his Lord! And verily the unbelievers shall not prosper!”21

”The Jews call Ùzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; [in this] they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth!”22

“Allah is Christ the son of Mary”23 and “O Jesus son of Mary, Did you say unto people, worship me and my mother before Allah?”

In sum, the unbelievers are all those who: do not believe in Allah as creator of the heavens and the earth; reject the Qur’an and Islam; call Jesus Christ “Son of Allah”; do not believe in Allah and Mohammed as his messenger; invoke other ‘gods,’ such as Christ or the Holy Spirit; or invoke angels and saints.

In other words, all non-Muslims are “unbelievers.” The Qur’an clearly states the final consequence of being an unbeliever: “Those who oppose [the command of] Allah and his messenger [Mohammed] will be humbled to dust, as were those before them: for We have already sent down clear signs. And the unbelievers [will have] a humiliating chastisement.”24 and "Surely Allah will not forgive the association of partners with him, but he forgives [sins] less than that to whomever he wishes.”25

What are Muslims commanded to do regarding these unbelievers? In one reference, Muslims are commanded simply to state their beliefs when encountering non-Muslims: “O you who disbelieve, I do not believe in what you believe, nor do you believe in what I believe. You have your own religion and I have mine.”26 There are also references that insist there should be no compulsion in matters of religion. These texts seem to preach religious tolerance and peace. But things are quite different when Muslims are called to jihad in various circumstances and times in the Qur’an, displaying an adversarial relation between Mohammed and Muslims on the one hand and all non-Muslims on the other. {the rest of the article is at the site below.)

Jihad in Islamic theology

Thanks RK - so the Qu'ran is inconsistent on the issue - not a massive surprise: most religious books are. Thanks for clearing it up... Martin

Just one comment. There is a very important concept in Islam, especially in Islamic law which RK forgot to mention: verses in the Quran can be abrogated by later ones (nash and mansuh). It was a whole field of study to establish an exact chronology and to know which verses are considered to be abrogated. The fuqaha (experts on religious law) dealt with these inconsistencies rather successfully (f.e. in the case of the prohibition of alcohol where there are verses in the Quran which prohibit alcohol and others which simply not recommend it). --Elian

Thanks much for bringing this up! This should go into the main entry. RK

I'll try to collect a little bit more informations (my library at home is unfortunately very small...) and add it to the article on Islamic law (where it belongs) --Elian

I find it quite quixotic to be defending Islam on the talk page of "Islam and anti-semitism", but here's my shot.

First of all, you (RK) quoted the Noble Qur'an very disingenuously. You have not given who's translation that is. To simply pluck random verses from the Noble Qur'an without the context is ridiculous. The Noble Qur'an is not for the uneducated; only those with knowledge will understand it (see 3:7 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html). Now, let us examine the verses you quoted in context, one by one:

009.120

YUSUFALI: It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighbourhood, to refuse to follow Allah's Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his: because nothing could they suffer or do, but was reckoned to their credit as a deed of righteousness,- whether they suffered thirst, or fatigue, or hunger, in the cause of Allah, or trod paths to raise the ire of the Unbelievers, or received any injury whatever from an enemy: for Allah suffereth not the reward to be lost of those who do good;-

PICKTHAL: It is not for the townsfolk of Al-Madinah and for those around them of the wandering Arabs so stay behind the messenger of Allah and prefer their lives to his life. That is because neither thirst nor toil nor hunger afflicteth them in the way of Allah, nor step they any step that angereth the disbelievers, nor gain they from the enemy a gain, but a good deed is recorded for them therefor. Lo! Allah loseth not the wages of the good.

SHAKIR: It did not beseem the people of Medina and those round about them of the dwellers of the desert to remain behind the Messenger of Allah, nor should they desire (anything) for themselves in preference to him; this is because there afflicts them not thirst or fatigue or hunger in Allah's way, nor do they tread a path which enrages the unbelievers, nor do they attain from the enemy what they attain, but a good work is written down to them on account of it; surely Allah does not waste the reward of the doers of good;

009.121

YUSUFALI: Nor could they spend anything (for the cause) - small or great- nor cut across a valley, but the deed is inscribed to their credit: that Allah may requite their deed with the best (possible reward).

PICKTHAL: Nor spend they any spending, small or great, nor do they cross a valley, but it is recorded for them, that Allah may repay them the best of what they used to do.

SHAKIR: Nor do they spend anything that may be spent, small or great, nor do they traverse a valley, but it is written down to their credit, that Allah may reward them with the best of what they have done.

009.122

YUSUFALI: Nor should the Believers all go forth together: if a contingent from every expedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them,- that thus they (may learn) to guard themselves (against evil).

PICKTHAL: And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.

SHAKIR: And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?

009.123

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

So, as apparent from the previous verses, this passage is dealing with times of war. It is only saying that, in times of war, fight the nearest enemies first. And "unbeliever" does not mean "non-Muslim" in this verse. It in fact means "enemy of Islam", or "anti-Muslim".

I noticed that you attempted to give a defintion to "unbeliever", when in fact the word is vague and refers to different people in each verse it is mentioned. To conclude that all non-Muslims are unbelievers is oversimplification as well as misdirection. By the way, your link, "http://www.christianislamicforum.org/jihad_in_islamic_theology.htm", doesn't work.

002.062

YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

005.069

YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

SHAKIR: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

If you would like to give your own definition to the word, go ahead. But don't expect knowledgable Muslims to agree with it.

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Notice how it says "the Jews and the Christians"? This verse is referring to Jews and Christians as a whole. It says nothing about individual Jews or individual Christians. And this is practical advice as well.

YUSUFALI: Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.

PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way.

SHAKIR: Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.

004.138

YUSUFALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;-

PICKTHAL: Bear unto the hypocrites the tidings that for them there is a painful doom;

SHAKIR: Announce to the hypocrites that they shall have a painful chastisement:

004.139

YUSUFALI: Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.

PICKTHAL: Those who chose disbelievers for their friends instead of believers! Do they look for power at their hands? Lo! all power appertaineth to Allah.

SHAKIR: Those who take the unbelievers for guardians rather than believers. Do they seek honor from them? Then surely all honor is for Allah.

004.140

YUSUFALI: Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-

PICKTHAL: He hath already revealed unto you in the Scripture that, when ye hear the revelations of Allah rejected and derided, (ye) sit not with them (who disbelieve and mock) until they engage in some other conversation. Lo! in that case (if ye stayed) ye would be like unto them. Lo! Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers, all together, into hell;

SHAKIR: And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell.

004.141

YUSUFALI: (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?"- but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" but Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.

PICKTHAL: Those who wait upon occasion in regard to you and, if a victory cometh unto you from Allah, say: Are we not with you? and if the disbelievers meet with a success say: Had we not the mastery of you, and did we not protect you from the believers? - Allah will judge between you at the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of success) against the believers.

SHAKIR: Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And i. there IS a chance for the unbelievers, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers? So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.

004.142

YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance;

PICKTHAL: Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little;

SHAKIR: Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and He shall requite their deceit to them, and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little.

004.143

YUSUFALI: (They are) distracted in mind even in the midst of it,- being (sincerely) for neither one group nor for another whom Allah leaves straying,- never wilt thou find for him the way.

PICKTHAL: Swaying between this (and that), (belonging) neither to these nor to those. He whom Allah causeth to go astray, thou (O Muhammad) wilt not find a way for him:

SHAKIR: Wavering between that (and this), (belonging) neither to these nor to those; and whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall not find a way for him.

004.144

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?

SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

004.145

YUSUFALI: The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-

PICKTHAL: Lo! the hypocrites (will be) in the lowest deep of the Fire, and thou wilt find no helper for them;

SHAKIR: Surely the hypocrites are in the lowest stage of the fire and you shall not find a helper for them.

004.146

YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent, mend (their lives) hold fast to Allah, and purify their religion as in Allah's sight: if so they will be (numbered) with the believers. And soon will Allah grant to the believers a reward of immense value.

PICKTHAL: Save those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and make their religion pure for Allah (only). Those are with the believers. And Allah will bestow on the believers an immense reward.

SHAKIR: Except those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and are sincere in their religion to Allah, these are with the believers, and Allah will grant the believers a mighty reward.

004.147

YUSUFALI: What can Allah gain by your punishment, if ye are grateful and ye believe? Nay, it is Allah that recogniseth (all good), and knoweth all things.

PICKTHAL: What concern hath Allah for your punishment if ye are thankful (for His mercies) and believe (in Him)? Allah was ever Responsive, Aware.

SHAKIR: Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? And Allah is the Multiplier of rewards, Knowing.

Clearly, these verses is dealing with hypocrites. When this verse is looked upon, in context, the reasoning behind this advice is evident. Those who befriend Jews and Christians instead of Muslims are hypocrites. And, as explained in 4:145, hypocrites are among the worst people in Islam. "Islamic" terrorists are hypocrites, they are not following Islam as you so dilligently claim.

YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.

PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of folk who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from a plain road.

SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.

005.078

YUSUFALI: Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.

PICKTHAL: Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress.

SHAKIR: Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.

005.079

YUSUFALI: Nor did they (usually) forbid one another the iniquities which they committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.

PICKTHAL: They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily evil was that they used to do!

SHAKIR: They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.

005.080

YUSUFALI: Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.

PICKTHAL: Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.

SHAKIR: You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.

005.081

YUSUFALI: If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what hath been revealed to him, never would they have taken them for friends and protectors, but most of them are rebellious wrong-doers.

PICKTHAL: If they believed in Allah and the Prophet and that which is revealed unto him, they would not choose them for their friends. But many of them are of evil conduct.

SHAKIR: And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.

005.082

YUSUFALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

PICKTHAL: Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.

SHAKIR: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

005.083

YUSUFALI: And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.

PICKTHAL: When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messengers, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses.

SHAKIR: And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).

I am very tempted to say QED on this one, but I don't want to risk misunderstanding. The verses, once again, are clearly dealing with hypocrites and people who change God's Law for the purposes of sinning. These people befriend Jews and Christians for the purposes of sinning. That's why it is wrong.

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

The entire Sura deals with war. Within context, this can clearly be seen as telling Muslims to fight during a war. I highly recommend reading Sura 9 in its entirety before referring to its individual verses.

To claim that "Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians..." is laughable. There is nothing to hide, there is no shame in these verses. You act as if Muslims keep these in secret or something. It's right there in the Noble Qur'an, there's nothing to hide. Do you really think I am that stupid?

Back to the point: Have some "Muslims" used these verses as justification for anti-semitism? Of course. But that's just ignorance, as I have clearly shown.

And now I'm expecting you to respond. Kirbytime 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe RK posted that about 2 years ago; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response, if I were you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

taken from the article:

After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed, he said that "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures." (XCVIII: The Proof: 6-7)

First, this doesn't refer specifically to Jews. Second, it is a relatively common criteria of religions that unbelievers will receive some kind of divine punishment after death. For people who don't believe in this religion it should be irrelevant what destiny this religion prepares for them after death. --Elian

You are wrong on two counts: This was specifically said after he failed to convert the Jews and the Christians. Secondly, why should we delete facts about a religion if other religions have similar characteristics? Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in God. Should we delete this because "it is a relatively common criteria of religions" ?! In any case, this article is specifically about Islam's relationship with Judaism, not about the relationship of other religions to Judaism. It looks to me like you just are trying to hide a fact which is inconvenient. RK

As you said, this article is about Islam and anti-semitism (at least the article is titled like this, there is something wrong with the redirects of the talk pages). The claimed destiny of all people, Christians, Jews and polytheists, not believing to Islam does not belong into an article about its specific relationship to Judaism. Could you explain to me why, when religionX says: "all who don't believe in X will go to hell" this would constitute a trait of anti-semitism? --Elian

I concur with Elian. How is saying _everyone_ else will go to hell discriminatory against _Jews_? - Mustafaa 09:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I was actually rather impressed with this article. Historically, under Muslim rule there has been very little anti-Semitism (with a few exceptions). The religion of Islam itself has barriers against anti-Semitism, just as Judaism has barriers against maltreatment of the sons of Ishmael. The current mess in the Middle East is not a religious issue, in my opinion, and I think that the article did a fairly good job of expressing this.

--66.92.69.84

---

taken from the article:

Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews

Around 700 CE, Jews were forcibly converted to Islam during the Arab conquest of North Africa. Around 970 CE Jews in Barcelona, Spain were massacred by local Muslims. All of their property was confiscated. Around 1000 CE Muslim pogroms in Egypt killed many Jews. Near this same time, during the Islamic Almohade control of Spain, many Jews were killed by Muslims. Many Jews were forced to convert to Islam. Others fled the country. In 1050 CE the Islamic community in Morocco began a series of pogroms against Jews that killed several thousand in the Jewish community.

this section needs more background information. "Forcibly converted" contradicts other statements in the article and is against the principles of Islam so some details on this would be helpful.

Who told you that Muslims don't force people to covert to Islam? Many people were murdered when they didn't convert to Islam; this is not a wild claim. Muslim colonialism spread Islam by the sword for many centuries. This is an established historical fact, and I can't imagine on what grounds you deny its veracity. Please present historical sources for your claim, please. RK

This is wrong, especially in regard to the people of the book. They had the choice to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule or to emigrate. I did some research and I found exactly one mention of an attempt of forcible conversion: of an Christian Arab tribe who then emigrated into Byzantine territory. Some reading for al-Andalus and Egypt: [1] [2] (BTW a fascinating source of information) --Elian

Persecution of Jews is not my special field of study, so I can comment only on the events around 1000 in Egypt. I suppose this refers to the (crazy) Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim, son of a christian mother and raised as a christian, who persecuted first Christians (he let destroy some 30 000 churches) and Jews, then he forbid the hadj and the fast in ramadan and declared himself God and let erase the name of Allah in the mosques and replaced it by his name. One of his followers founded the sect of the druze, al-Hakim himself disappeared in the riots against him. Regarding these facts I find the mention of this specific event really displaced in an article about "Islam and anti-semitism" and it doesn't invite to trust the other examples. --Elian

"Who told you..."? Hmm, how about the Quran, 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion"? Muslim colonialism spread Islam, certainly - but not by killing everyone who didn't convert (as the widespread presence of Christianity across the Fertile Crescent proves), but by government-encouraged proselytizing and material incentives in the form of typically lower taxes. This section does indeed need more references; the Almohad thing I;ve heard elsewhere, but very little is known (and a lot is speculated for political reasons) about North Africa in 700, and I would certainly want to see better references for that. - Mustafaa 08:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

taken from the article:

Many believe that Muhammad's name existed in all other "Holy Books", however as part of their mischief the "Banu Israel" tribe destroyed their existence. However muslims are obligated to respect those who believe in the same God.

I have never heard someone claim this (and I know "many Muslims"). I'd appreciate a trustworthy and respectable source to back this claim. --Elian

taken from the article:

Al-Tabari, a 10th century Islamic commentator on the Koran, gives an interpretation of verses 5:112-115. He holds that apostles were punished by Allah by turning them into apes and pigs. Many Muslims hold that Allah still will use this form of punishment for Muslims who commit sins; this punishment is specifically linked to the idea that all Jews are sinners. The idea is that by threatening a non-observant Muslim with the punishment once given to Jews, a Muslim will stop erring. (Uri Rubin, "Apes, Pigs, and the Islamic Identity," Israel Oriental Studies XVII (1997), pp. 93-102.)

The apostles are christian, not Jewish. Does at-Tabari link this specifically to Jews? Otherwise it belongs in an article "Islam and anti-Christianity" but not here.

I'd prefer Islam and Christianity if such an article is created... Martin

moved from Talk:Islam and alleged anti-Semitism

For a balanced article, the claims of anti-Semitism should be balanced by a rebuttal by those who deny such claims. --Uncle Ed 15:30 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Many Jews consider this to anti-Semitic, in that it creates a historical anachronim that usurps the founding patriarch of Judaism, for the purpose of promoting a different religion.

This sentence would be better if it named a specific individual or group of note who considered this verse to be anti-Semitic. Martin

'Of those Jews who know about this Islamic teaching, pretty much every religious Jew I have met has been insulted by this teaching. This is a mainstream reaction among Jews. Consider the same thing when it comes to Christianity: Most Chrisitans are terribly insulted when they learn that Islam teaches that the New Testament was deliberately faked and altered; Chrisitans who know of this teaching are appalled that Muslims teach that Christian leaders deliberately lied about the words of Jesus. While we certainly can look up some references on this subject (why Jews are hurt by the first claim; why Christians are hurt by the second claim) is should be obvious that these statement are considered hurtful and insulting by non-Muslims! RK

I'm not particularly doubting its accuracy - I'd just like to see it changed to something like In 1985, the Universal Council of Rabbis, which represents 85% of Jewish synagogues, condemned this teaching as "grossly anti-Semitic".

On a similar note, the claim that the verse shows that Abraham was a Muslim and not a Jew also needs to be attributed to some prominent Islamic scholar/group/etc. Martin

I'd just like to add that calling Abraham a Jew is almost as anachronistic as calling Adam or Noah a Jew. Abraham's sons included both the supposed ancestor of all Jews and the supposed ancestor of all Arabs; if he was any ethnicity, my guess would be Chaldean... - Mustafaa 09:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish understanding is that neither Noah nor Adam were Jewish (and that is why the rules G-d imposed on Noah (the so called 7 Noahide Laws - don't murder, don't rob, etc.) are considered universal laws that if obeyed by non Jews get them into heaven as quickly as Jews who are enjoined to obey the 613 Commandments - which is one of the reasons Jews don't proseletyze - but thats another matter altogether); but Abraham is the first Jew, God commanded him to begin the Jewish nation, so there's nothing anachronistic at all about this belief Incorrect 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This really is ridiculous in the arabic language the term semitic is used to describe the Arab race. How on earth can islam be anti semitic?!?!? The correct term really is Miso-Judaic [3]. But even so the Ihud mentioned in islamic litrerature were a Judiac cult which worshipped Ezra as the son of God and this cult does not exist anymore. The Quran says nothing bad about Eldhyn Hudwe which means "The Hebrews" as refering to the modern Jews.

Hey, if anyone gets the chance to check the paper references in here, they should be checked. I've found enough errors already to seriously undermine confidence in this article. - Mustafaa 09:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

not wanting to follow 5:32? wether it be to subjugate non-followers or kill them (transcript of modern clerical speech/incitation for revolt) it is written in the koran, you cannot deny it. as a devout follower of christian faith i have no problem following my book to the letter, why cant you follow yours? is it because you can see that your book derives its principles upon those written before? Muhammhed took pages from the torah and lessons he liked to suit his needs. the stories are shorter that you may draw your own conclusions. now whose book is corrupt?

From anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_and_Islam

It seems this section in iteslf is grown into another article. What is the point of having a parallel/self/contradictory article? IMHO, it is full of errors, non-NPOV propaganda, excuses and avoids even the word dhimmi:

Islam is similar to Judaism, in that both see themselves as both spiritual descendants of Abraham and followers of the same prophets. Islamic scholars are quick to point out that Islam encourages toleration and respect for Jews, as well as Christians, as both are considered "People of the Book", meaning they share common scriptures and prophets. Many people have produced hadith concerning Muhammad that showed how he did business with the Jewish tribes of his city and how he ordered Muslims to share food with their Jewish neighbors.

Historically there has not been as much anti-Semitism in Muslim lands as in Christian lands, up until the Twentieth century. While many Jews were persecuted in Europe, they enjoyed relative political and religious freedom in Islamic societies. After helping the Muslims conquer Spain, they helped the Muslims govern the country throughout the Middle Ages (and parts remained under Muslim control until the completion of the Reconquista in 1492); during that time, Jewish citizens had rights nearly equal to those of American citizens today. Jewish historians refer to that time period as "The Golden Age of Judaism", which ended in 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella gave them May, June, and July to leave Spain permanently. The Catholic Monarchs declaired this to be due to their effect on the religious faith of the Marranos and Jews who had converted to Christianity.

Jews, and their Rabbis, gained prominence in the courts of Baghdad, Cairo, and Istanbul, performing the duties of palace physicians, finance officers, and even government ministers known as "viziers.' As a minority, Jews exempt from Islamic law (Sharia), and the governments allowed them a degree of self-rule by appointing Jewish leaders to implement Jewish law for their communities. Important synagogues dot the major cities of the Middle East, and relations between Muslims and Jews have been relatively calm for over a thousand years.

Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased greatly in the twentieth century. This can be traced to various sources; some of it can be traced to long-held prejudices and historical misunderstandings. The main reason for the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East in the past fifty years may be due to the poor state of relations between Israel, a Jewish-majority state, and the isolation enforced by the neighboring Arab countries. Criticism of Israeli policy has resulted in a marked rise in distrust of Jews and anti-Semitism at the popular level. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RK

I believe that your affiliation with Rabbis and whatnot is clouding your perspective on this issue. There is much speculation as to the persecution of Jews in North Africa during the period mentioned (read above complaints), especially considering its contradiction with the concurrent Moorish state in pre-Inquisition Spain. Also, I don't find it prudent to create an article claiming to represent Muslim clerics' view of miso-Judaism citing mutliple quotes from one cleric and one from another. In addition to that, the conflict occuring over occupation in Palestine is downplayed and made to seem like a poor excuse for any hard feelings/rebellion. If you wish for this to be anything more than grey propaganda, then you must cite multiple POVs on this issue, not just your own POV stated as fact.--Mymunkee 07:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(A) There is no such word as "miso-Semitism". Please be aware is a made-up word used mostly by people who try to deny the existence or extent of anti-Semitism. (B) The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews is very recent, and has nothing to do with the last 1,300 years of relations between Muslims and Jews. (C) I am not citing any of my own points of view, in fact I suspect you haven't the slighest idea what they are. You seem to be irritated that I am allowing Muslims to speak for themselves in their own words, which are POVs that some here would like hidden or removed. Allowing Muslims to speak for themselves is not anti-Muslim "propaganda". RK 14:17, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Islam or muslims?

Is it Islam and anti-semitism or muslims and anti-semitism? The actions of un-islamic rulers or kings should not form a part of an article about Islam and anti-semitism, that is misleading, if the actions of a "clinically insane egyptian ruler" are representative of anti-semitism in islam then the massacre of praying muslims by a jew in Hebron are representative of anti-arab muslim sentiments in judaism.

You misunderstand. "Islam" and "Muslims" are the same. "Islam" is the name of the religion, "Muslim" is the name of a follower of that religion. Secondly, you can't claim that Muslims who promote anti-Semitisn are not really Muslims (un-Islamic, in your terminology). That is the classic No true Scotsman logical fallacy. RK 14:21, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

No they aren't. There's a good reason that Jew and Judaism are separate articles. And the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is certainly no fallacy when it comes to religions - imagine blaming the actions of Burma's government on Buddhism! - Mustafaa 05:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may be missing my point. We do agree on the No True Scottsman fallacy. I don't understand your point here. I agree with you that bad actions by Egypt (just for example) do not reflect badly on all Muslims, and a bad action by an Egyptian Muslim would not reflect badly on Egypt. Similarly, I agree that bad actions by the State of Israel do not reflect badly on all Jews, and a bad action by an Israeli Jew would not reflect badly on Egypt. However, my point was more about the general phenomenon of anti-Semitism within Islam. It seemed to me that the above person was claiming that these anti-Semitic beliefs weren't carried out by true Muslims, because true Muslims aren't anti-Semitic. That kind of circular reasoning leads to the No True Scotsman fallacy! I have seen the same kind of apologetics applied by Christians, saying that the people who carried out the crusades could not possibly have been Christian. RK 11:53, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

RK, I'm afraid you may have missed my point, what I meant was that the actions of a a muslim should not reflect on Islam, for example, the actions of Hitler do not reflect on christianity, the actions of the Irgun or the Stern Gang do not reflect on Judaism etc. Therefore, the actions of an Egyptian ruler, or any arab or muslim ruler should not reflect at all on the religion of Islam, you judge a religion by it's scripture not it's people, this article is about Islam and not muslims, if you want to write about muslims then create an article about anti-semitism and muslims. --Omar 12:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I now get your point. But there is a still a problem, because I don't think that you understand Islam. The teachings and actions that are described within this article are not examples of violations of Islam by rogue Muslims; they are not rare instances of deviations from normative Islamic teachings. Rather, they are examples of what mainstream segments of Islam have taught for 1300 years. Apologetics aside, Islam does not have a good track record in regards to its teachings about Jews (and Christians). Islam does have a much better record towards Jews than does classical Christianity, but that isn't saying much. RK 13:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

The example being cited - Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah - is a very clear example of why the distinction is needed; this madman who banned sleeping at night and eating molokhiyya may have imagined himself to be a Muslim at some point - just as he later imagined, and proclaimed, himself to be a god - but was clearly no true Muslim, and holding his reign as an example of "Islam and anti-Semitism" is absurd. - Mustafaa 03:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abraham

"The Quran states that "Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters." (III - The house of Imran 67). This verse asserts that the biblical patriarch Abraham was not a Jew, but that he was a "Muslim" in the word's etymological sense of "one who has surrendered (to God)". Many Jews consider this to be anti-Semitic, in that it creates an alleged historical anachronism that usurps the founding patriarch of Judaism, for the purpose of promoting a different religion."

This is not a historical anachronism at all - unless, of course, you accept the equally unprovable secularist claim that Abraham was probably polytheist, or did not exist. In the Quran, "Muslim" is not used in its present-day sense, as an all-purpose term for Muslims as opposed to other religions (the closest equivalent of that in the Quran is "mu'min", believer); rather, it retains its original meaning of "submitter". If there's one thing Muslims, Christians, and Jews can agree on, it's that Abraham submitted to God's will; that's about the least you can say of anyone willing to sacrifice his son at God's command. - Mustafaa 08:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While imposing the modern day understanding of "Muslim" on the text of the Qur'an may be incorrect, that's still how it's usually understood by Muslims. In any event, the point is moot; the sentence presents the view of Jews, and you can't NPOV their POV even as you present it. Rather, you present it, then follow it with the counterview, which the article does. I suppose we could go about putting "alleged" before every single claim just about anyone makes, but that would make for mighty tedious reading, vis:

Many Jews consider this to be anti-Semitic, in that it creates an alleged historical anachronism that usurps the founding patriarch of Judaism, for the purpose of promoting a different religion. Muslims argue that calling him a Jew is itself allegedly anachronistic; if Abraham was an ethnic Jew etc. Jayjg 15:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see that. As I read it, "argue that..." removes the need for "allegedly", and so does "consider" in the first half of the former sentence, whereas "in that" implies factuality. It's not a matter of style so much as of syntax. - Mustafaa 00:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Argue that" works, and is better than "alleged". Jayjg 03:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While Abraham is the founder of monotheism, he is not also the founder of the form of Judaism, Christianity and Islam practiced today, and not even the Judaism practiced and taught by Moses who came after Abraham. All three (often referred to as Abrahamic religions) developed their unique rituals over time while continuing to remain monotheistic, each in their own way. Therefore Abraham was a Muslim only in the sense of the word explained above (i.e. submitter).

Qur'an verses should not be viewed as "usurping the patriarch of Judaism to promote another religion" because they essentially promote monotheism more than anything else. However, becuase Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion because follower's faith is not related to his or her descent, it may challenge the descent part while it does not challenge the monotheism which is also part of Judaism. Bardylis 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I agree that both views should be included with equal consideration. Bardylis 13:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Side

There are two articles here on Arab_Anti-Semitism and Islam and anti-Semitism. Both very negative. Are there any article here on Israeli racism against Arabs and Judaism negative views on Gentiles? Why not? That's not uncommon either, and I can easily write articles on that topic. Israel Shahak actually wrote a book on it, didn't he?

Try Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia, Zionism and racism. Jayjg 16:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And where is Jewish racism against gentiles? OneGuy 18:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you imagine that to be? Jayjg 23:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Haven't you seen Shahak book? Or you would label any criticism of Judaism as "anti-semitism" even though you yourself don't seem to mind critical articles on Islam?

I've seen the Shahak book. What specifically were you referring to? Jayjg 22:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparison with Christian anti-semitism

Some Islamists claim Kemal Atatürk was a secret Jew. Do Muslim anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Caliphate-destroyers" in the same way that Christian anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Christ killers"? GCarty 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does it make a difference, I agree that jews have been treated horribly by christians throught the middle ages to now. this does not mean that moslems are free of blame. I beleive that the jews of medina were the first of the jews killed by moslems themselves being killed by mohammad, and the jews were killed through out the reign of the moslems. The jews were persecuted and killed in pretty much all the moslem and arab countries.

[citation needed] added

The text now reads "After Muhammad's efforts to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed[citation needed]..."

I'm quite curious as to what may be used as evidence to substantiate this claim. 71.141.168.28 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The link to substantiate this claim is : (http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/had.html#a23464).

Firstly, these "hadiths" fail to mention the context. (many of them say "the rest is irrelevent"). Secondly, the author doens't identify him/herself, or give reference to an authentic source. ALso, the associcated article [10] seems to be unscholarly. And ofcourse, the site answering-islam.org.uk is quite POV. BEtter sources need to be found. Bless sins 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) And also the author clearly states that "All of the Hadeeths are translated by me personally, and I am not an expert in translation. ".Bless sins 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher. A citation is needed for the "After Muhammad's efforts to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed[citation needed]..." quote to remain. I demanded a citation more than a moth ago. If you can find a citation, great; put up the quote (with the source). But this quote can no longer remain.Bless sins 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference provided. Pecher ^Talk 13:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The refernce you provided is: Haddad, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 97, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1977), pp. 519-530 . Firstly who is this Haddad?? What qualifies him/her to be an expert on the Seerah. How does he/she (Haddad) know when verses were revealed? Pls. provide some qualifications, or the citation will be removed.Bless sins 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question above.Bless sins 10:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep waiting, you won't get any. If you dispute a reference, it is your responsibility to provide arguments why the source is unreliable. Pecher ^Talk 11:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. If you get some unknown writer, how I'm supposed to even find who this guy is, let alone refute his arguments.Bless sins 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the least you can do is provide me with a first name (Haddad is a popular last name). ALso a link to his work could be good.Bless sins 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is a scholarly journal; it's your responsibility to check it. Pecher ^Talk 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, can you pls. provide me with a first name of this "Haddad" person.Bless sins 09:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have put in "according to", because clearly there are better and more reliable sources that dispute this claim, right below the quote. "Yvonne Haddad" can't possibly be a more reliable source than scholars Yusuf Ali and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi.Bless sins 17:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, pls. provide the Haddad quote (about the quranic verse) verbatim here. Thanks.Bless sins 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) An while you're at it pls. tell me how Haddad is a scholarly source on Islamic history.Bless sins 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic" claims that certain Jews had been transformed into lowly animals

These claims are by some Muslim scholars. There is no evidence that "Islam" (the religion) makes these claims.Bless sins 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine distinction, isn't it? I'll accomodate your POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Muslims" is the same as "Islamic" (and I never meant for you to change it to that). Just becuase some, Muslim/Islamic scholars claim such things, does'nt mean that Islam, a religion as a whole, claims this. Once again the keyword is some. Bless sins 04:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you changed the word "Islamic" to "Muslim" in the section itself, I assumed that was your issue. The heading in no way implies that all Muslims have made these claims, and, in fact, is quite clear on who has made which claims. The people making these claims were certainly not non-Muslims, and were making these claims from their perspective of Islam. Of course, if you have found Muslim sources which specifically contradict those claims, that would be a good start. Also, your objection seems strange in light of other similar section headings, e.g. "Jewish-Muslim dialogue" "Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article should say that more explicitly. IT should start with some thing like : " Some Muslim groups or individuals..."Bless sins 18:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth should it say that? It's clear that not all Muslims say any particular thing; there are at least a billion of them. Your suggestion is redundant at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, every section needs an intro. I think "Some Muslims believe that in the past certain Jews were transformed into animals. " is appropriate. Secondly, it clears up the misconception that Muslims in general, or mainstream Muslims don't hold that belief, rather only some Muslims belive this. Saying "Muslims belive in XYZ..." implies something mainstream. Bless sins 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would sections require intros? And have you found any evidence yet that it isn't "something mainstream"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it better to give this section as intro?? I don't see what might be wrong with it.Bless sins 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps you can mull this over: [11]. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The report is about "Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals"; yet the section is about, "Jews had been transformed into lowly animals". One is talking about a human to animal tranformation and the other about animal to human. Secondly, many of the links on this article don't seem to work. Of the first 6 links (which describe attitudes of prominent Muslims), one is in Arabic (language I can't read), and others are bad (or my server is messed up).Bless sins 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your point now? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

THe same that it has been : this article should do a better job at distinguishing between the anti-Semitic Muslims (who are NOT the mainstream) from the those who respect all persons. I still maintain that an introductory sentence to each article would be a good way to clarify this.Bless sins 05:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to NPOV the article, why don't you find a citeable source which indicates that this is not a mainstream view? I've asked this before. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it up to you to provide the evidence? If you were to claim that Muslims worship monkey, would I be under the obligation to provide evidence agianst this?Bless sins 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The evidence has been provided. You say there's a different POV as well. OK, provide it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pls. direct me to the evidence that says "mainstream Muslims believe that some Jews were transformed into lowly animals"? Bless sins 09:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes so far available are almost exculsive to Israeli-occupied territories. Saying that opinion of the Palestinians (about 4 million) is representative of the 1,200 million Muslims is absurd.Bless sins 10:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you found those "mainstream" Muslims who state this is not true yet? If not, why not? It thought it was a mainstream thing, wouldn't it be easy to find? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is up to you to provide the evidence that mainstream Muslims believe XYZ (in this case the transformation Jews to animals). If you were to claim that Muslims believed monkeys were gods, you would be the one to provide evidence for those claims, its not my resp. to provide evidence contrary to that. Bless sins 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, before (or after) reverting my edits, care to explain why??Bless sins 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ALSO, can you explain the relevency of this: "Al-Jahiz (d. 869), a ninth century Muslim zoologist and belles-lettriste who authored ...". First of all Al-Jahiz is authoring a non-theolgy, and a rather medieval scientific (as it was back then) book. How does this relate to mainstream Muslims or Islam in general? Secondly, how did this book cause the "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews"? Bless sins 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So I'm assuming (due to lack of response) that everybody agrees this section is irrelevent.Bless sins 01:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you assumed incorrectly. I'm pretty sure he was Muslim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just like the Einstien's theories of relativity have nothing to do with Judaism, the opinion of a Muslim scientist has no relation to Islam whatsoever, and hence does not belong in the article "Islam and Anti-semitism".Bless sins 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are positing a separation of church and state which did not exist at the time. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic theology (like Christian theology) has never been influenced by science (as it was percieved during history). IF it was Muslim scholars would accept evolution etc.. The point is that the opinion of one Muslim scientist (in a scientific not theological book) has nothing to do with "Islam". Islam is based upon the Quran and the hadith.Bless sins 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, pls get the citation for this as well, or it will be removed: "This verse (interpreted to mean that they were turned into apes) is sometimes used by hostile groups to mock the Jews, on the grounds that these must have been Jews, since the Sabbath is a commandment which (according to Islam) God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers[citation needed]. "04:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your citations are insufficient. What I was looking for is this:

This verse is sometimes used by hostile groups to mock the Jews
Sabbath is a commandment which God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers

The first point is only slightly covered by the sources you provided. None of them explicitly connects this verse with the HAMAS or other organizations. The second point I have not found in any source. Can you find me a soure that says "Sabbath is a commandment which God demanded of only Jews ", and then connect it to hostile groups mocking Jews. Bless sins 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think my version is correct. Quran (7:163-166) says that God told a group of disobedient people living by the sea: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected". Earlier verses show that these people had broken the Sabbath.

Indeed, that is exactly what the quran describes. Check out the translation here ([12]). IT says they broke their sabbath but also that they "disregarded the warnings that had been given them, " and that they "transgressed (all) prohibitions". The Quran makes it clear that these people were disobedient and breaking the Sabbath was just one of thier sins. Infact if you look at 163,164, 165, 166; only 163 talks about Sabbath. The rest talk about other disobedience.Bless sins 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the key to it is that they were Sabbath-breakers, as the many sources provided indicate. Your original research is interesting, but the focus of all the sources is on the Sabbath-breaking. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat my self: Can you provide a source that says "Sabbath is a commandment which God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers". NONE of your sources say that.

Can you also provide a source that "This verse (7:163-166) is sometimes used by hostile groups to mock the Jews"?? Your source should provide explicit example of hostile groups referring to this verse in their efforts to mock Jews. Bless sins 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

YEs, I have. Some of you sources are rahter interesting as they show Muslims praising Jews who upheld thier religion. Anyways, can you please point me to ONE good source that says "Sabbath is a commandment which God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers." ???

Can you also point me to a quote in any of your sources that show a group (e.g. HAMAS) using the verse as evidence to mock Jews. No doubt groups like HAMAS will mock Jews, but do they actually ever use the verse 7:163-66??? IF so, where. (all I require is ONE good source, rather than a bunch of ambigous ones).Bless sins 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, pls. explain the relevence of this paragraph: "In the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) Jews were forced to wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and were also forced to affix said image to their homes. (For Christians, the image was of a pig.) " Did the Aghlabid Dynasty claim that some Jews had been transformed? The fact they made Jews wear this may be oppressive, but certainly does not mean that they claimed such a thing (esp. as they made Chrisitans wear pig images, despite no mention of Christians bieng transformed into pigs in the Quran).Bless sins 10:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello SlimVirgin, the last comment here is by me. I don't see how any of my edits have been refuted. Just to make it clearer I'll explain myself. I have made the following changes:

Removed :"After Muhammad's efforts to convert the Jews of Yathrib failed [citation needed],", can you find a source for that please?
Removed: "since the Sabbath is a commandment which (according to Islam) God demanded of Jews but not of his other followers", can you find a source please?
Taken the Quranic verses (The Proof 6-7) in context, (which clearly praises faithful Jews and Christians). I am merely completing the quote.
Created a new section called "Historic and modern Muslim respect for Jews", because "Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism" doesn't fit into the "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews" section.
Added one more prominent Muslim who opposes anti-Semitism. Is there anything wrong with that??

When I ask for source, pls don't bombard me with 10 weblinks, none of which contain the actual info. All I ask for is one good source, and perhaps quote that source, so I now where to look in it. Bless sins 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added my edits. Pls discuss this issue on the talk page before reverting.Bless sins 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the sources:

On the verses in 2:65 and 7:166, the structure of the verses clearly show Jewish provenance: "And you know well those who transgressed among you on the matter of the Sabbath...: Muslims do not observe a Sabbath, and so those being addressed are clearly Jews. Next it says "you know well" showing that the Q is presupposing knowledge of a tradition known to the Jews. Also, it says "those who transgressed among you" showing not ALL transgressed...and so the verse is an indictment not of all Jews, but of those who violated the Sabbath. 7:166 elucidates the nature of the transgression: that of netting fish on a Saturday.[13]

The divine punishment of Jews is mentioned in three Koranic verses: "... They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60); "...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65); and "when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised" (7:166).[14]

Sura 7:166 ... Muhammad then recounts a legend—not found in the Talmudists—about Jews fishing or working on the Sabbath in a town that tradition says was located on the Red Sea (vv. 163-167). God made fish appear on the surface only on the Sabbath, never on weekdays. This tempted some Jewish fishermen to break their holy day of rest, ignoring their teachers’ warnings.[15]

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section yet again. I'd leave it alone at this point, Bless sins, because I've barely scratched the surface of the quotes that are available from these sources alone. This version is very mild. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To Pecher: "The Quran states..." is better than "The Quran contains a number of verses describing Jews being transformed into apes and pigs...". This is becuase the quran itself is quoted, and we don't need to summarize what the quran says. The Quran speaks for itself. Also, as we see below the verse, shcolars disagree at what really happened, and therefore "Jews being transformed into apes and pigs" is not completetly true.Bless sins 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, your edits disrupt the format of the entire article. Pls. pay attention to what you are doing.Bless sins 12:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with bless sins. Muslim scholars and ulama decide what the quran says, not memeri, frontpage mage...random websites etc...142.240.200.10 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that will be more capable interpreting it, but they will not necessarily be better equiped to merely state what the quaran says.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, the quran states what the quran states. IF you think that the verse of the quran that is quoted says "Jews were transformed into apes and pigs", then the reader will know by looking over the quoted verse. Your comment would be redundant at best. You have to agree that "The Quran states..." is far more NPOV and accurate (no doubt about that) than what you are trying to put.Bless sins 11:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the quote itself is rather long winded, so an introductory sentence summarizing the content makes perfect sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro sentence makes an accusation. Clearly there is no concensus amongst the interpretors of the quran, as to what the the Quran is trying to say. A large number of interpretors and significants exegists disagree with the transforming principle. And about the quote being "long winded": that is necessary for clarification. This issue is not as simple as you may assume it to be. Summarizing it in a sentence only misrepresents the Quran.Bless sins 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated before we're not talking about interpretation, we are talking about what the words in the quaran actually say, which cannot be so easily disputed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You said, "are talking about what the words in the quaran actually say"(emphasis added).

Do the words in the Quran anywhere say "Jew"? No, the Quran says "wrong-doers"

Does the Quran say "transformed into ..."? No, the Quran says "Be ye apes...".

Pls. stop misquoting the Quran! Bless sins 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, what's the point of putting in "what the words in the quaran actually say"? That would be totally redundant. The Quranic verse is right below for the user to examine. Bless sins 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the Quran quotes state "Jews." The phrases "Sabbath breakers" and "People of the Book" include Christians. The intro is therefore interpretive original research. Discuss below the quotes sourced opinions that interpret the verses in an anti-Semitic slant. Implying the Quran itself is anti-Semitic doesn't go here and is not supported by any of the sourced material in the article. Start a new section with sources if you want that. Javadane 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sabbath breakers" applies only to Jews; "People of the Book" includes Jews. Please stop this nonsensical argument and edit warring; other editors are not obliged to repeatedly disprove this nonsense. Pecher ^Talk 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Sabbath was observed by Early Christians and is still strictly observed by many sects today. Sabbath#Early_observance_of_the_Sabbath . The Quran does not say "Jews" in these Suras. Such an interpretation is opinion. As with the Lewis pseudo-quote, just because a statement applies to a group, does not make it true that the statement can be modified to apply to a sub-group of the original group and still be true. Neither the Quran nor Lewis state that ALL members of the group meet their formula. This is inductive fallacy. Javadane 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is quite the opposite, you are in fact re-interpreting the meaning of long established meaning with insufficient evidence.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the quran uses the words "Jews" many times. However, in this case it clearly uses the term "Sabbath breakers", while it could have used "Jews". There is a reason for that. Anyone with the slightest ability to interpret the holy scriptures of a religion or other works of literature knows that the choice of words is of paramount importance.Bless sins 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A verse

Can anybody check this verse? I think there is something wrong with the reference 17:100-104

"Pharaoh sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharaoh] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." (Qur'an ^{[Quran 17:100]})

Thanks --Aminz 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this verse : "'You will find that the most brazen among mankind, with hatred towards the believers, are the Jews and the Idolaters.' (Quran ^{[Quran 81:5]})"

81:5 says something different I think. --Aminz 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An apology from a Muslim to Jewish Editors

I was shocked when I saw Maimonides description and assessment of the treatment of the Jews. As a Muslim, I would like to apologize for that. Were I in the shoes of Muslim rulers at that time, I would have been much more tolerant I believe. --Aminz 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis "Quote"

p. 41 of Bernard Lewis' book The Jews of Islam has the line "The same perception is reflected in a common oath formula: "[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew...."

He does NOT say "Throughout the ages" and he does not limit the "oath formula" to Muslims.

If you want a quote on Islam and anti-Semitism, there are plenty in his book. This is not one of them.Javadane 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article did not describe the quote as being limited to muslims, it just says that it is a commonly used phrase. Also you have violated the 3RR, please revert yourself to avoid a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the quote to make it more neutral. That should end the conflict here.Bless sins 04:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't use your own original research to attribute something to Lewis that he hasn't said. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ExactlyJavadane 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The context in Lewis' book definitely refers to a Muslim oath as the paragraph in full lists several Muslim quotes demonstrating the Muslim perception that dhimmis were of lower, humbler, inferior status. If you'd like I can type out the whole paragraph here to make it clear. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lewis definitely refers to an "oath formula" and in the context it would be appear that had he meant it to be a "Muslim oath formula" he would have added the word. I have no problem with someone finding a Muslim quote that conforms with Lewis' statement and referencing the sentence as "see how it conforms to Lewis' oath formula." But the repeated presentation of his statement as a "Muslim oath" is fictional and not derived from p. 41 of his work.Javadane 04:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He didn't need to say "Muslim" as it would be repetitious since the whole paragraph was quotes by Muslims. But if this sentence is singled out without the context showing it is a Muslim oath, it would be appropriate to state it as "a [Muslim] common oath formula..." --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The intent here appears to interpret the quote to limit the oath formula to Muslims. Lewis states no such limitation and the oath formula is certainly applicable to many statements made by non-Muslims. The brackets do not correct the problem.Javadane 07:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Historic Muslim Persecution of Jews" needs changes

This section, needs some changes. {BY the title, I'm assuming this section is for examples of "persecution" of Jews by Muslims.)

Muslim beliefs that certain Jews had been transformed into apes and pigs, should be in the this section section.
Similarly Anti-semitism by Islamic clerics should be in this section.

Bless sins 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

About my recent edits:

Certain facts belong in "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews" section, and likewise other facts belong in the "Historic Muslim respect for Jews" section. Respect is not the same as persecution and vice versa. Therefore examples of persecution DO NOT bleong in the "Historic Muslim respect for Jews". It doesn't make sense.Bless sins 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the title of the article is "Islam and anti-Semitism". Pecher ^Talk 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The title could contain two relevent themes: "Islam encourages anti-Semitism" or "Islam discourages anti-Semitism". The former theme is opposite the latter theme and vice versa.

Therefore some sections of the article will contain the former theme, and some the latter theme. Both are equally relevent.Bless sins 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have removed info that is repeated more than once. HTere is no use of repeating things over and over. Also, the info was quite irrelevent in the section it was removed from.Bless sins 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again Jayjg is making silly reverts and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page. Why, may I ask, should information be repeated again and again on the same page? How, may I ask, is the persecution of maimonides, related to respect for Jews (the section it has been placed in)?Bless sins 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, you made a deceptive edit summary, deleting other information. As well, this is an article about Islam and anti-Semitism, not about the fact that Maimonides was eventually able to escape Muslim persecution when after travelling a thousand miles to Egypt. If you insist on putting nonsensical information in about Maimonides, then it's going to be accurate and balanced. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All the info. I deleted was only repeats. I think mentioning a fact (or opinion) once is ENOUGH (unless its something fundamental to the article). Why do you keep on insisting otherwise? Would you agree to repeating the facts in "Historic Muslim respect for Jews" section? Bless sins 10:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and how is this information related to the criticism section of the Cairo declaration article? Please try not to use double standards when editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to come an argue with me on Talk:Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, I don't want to go off topic. (But you should know, in essentially every article there are two arguments made: the pro and con. Since there is no "Counter-Criticism" section in most articles, counter-criticisms are made in the critism section. In this article, however, there are two different section catering to two different views.)Bless sins 10:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reason you imagine there are two sections with "different views" here is because you have created an original research to attempt to counter the article. That will be cleaned up when I have time. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, does any one have any comments on this topic? (namely, how are a bunch of anti-Semitic statements by clerics examples of "persecution")Bless sins 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lewis quote

“[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew.” How is this a common quote? I've never read this in any book written by secular scholars of Islamic history. If it's not a claim, then other authors will have verified this. But the burden is upon whoever added this quote to support it's veracity. Otherwise it cannot be stated as fact and to do so is prejudicial. SouthernComfort 14:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is referenced to a reliable sources. No editor is obliged to quote several sources solely to please your demands. Pecher ^Talk 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this quote an example of "Historic Muslim Persecution of Jews"? If it sin't then the quote is irrelevent.Bless sins 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is directly relevant to the article is a clear example of Muslim anti-Semitism. If you belive it looks better in a different section, feel free to move it, but don't attempt to delete it. Pecher ^Talk 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what I did Pecher? I moved it to a now-extinct section called "Other views" (that you deleted).

I'm going to put a "citation tag" as soon as my 3RR period is over. Meanwhile it would help if you could either move the quote to a relevent section, or provide a source that states that this quote is an example of "persecution".Bless sins 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I pls get some evidence that this quote is an example of perseution??Bless sins 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The "quote" is not a quote. It is Original Research. p. 41 of Bernard Lewis' book The Jews of Islam has the line "The same perception is reflected in a common oath formula: "[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew...." This is significantly different than the phrase that keeps getting reposted to the article. (check it out with a Google Books search).Javadane 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Google Books search (really helpful). It is very easy to see that the phrase "throughout the ages" appears no where (although ""[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew..." does).Bless sins 20:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This quote should be removed because NO ONE has yet provided ANY source that states that this quote is an example of "persecution".Bless sins 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote WILL NOT be removed just because it reveals something you don't like to reveal, but if you feel that it does not belongs to the section on persections, feel free to move it elsewhere. Pecher ^Talk 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly stop making things up ("it reveals something you don't like to reveal"). Secondly I had moved it to another section. But YOU reverted my edits[16].

You should either:(1) provide a citation that shows this is an example of "persecution", or (2) move it to a relevent section.

This quote is NOT a "Historic event of Muslim Persecution", and ought to be removed from the section. (it can, however, be added to another, more relevent section). Bless sins 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing the word "Muslim" from the quote, which is not acceptable. The book happens to bear the title Jews of Islam, and the page in question talks about Muslim attitudes towards the Jews, so the oath is obviously Muslim. Please don't attempt to argue that it is not a Muslim oath or that the book is not specific enough about it: every reasonabe person reading the book will understand that this is a Muslim oath. The edit difference you have provided does not show my moving the quote between sections, so please do not misrepresent the nature of the dispute. Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I (not Bless Sins) keep removing the word "Muslim" from the phrase because it does not appear in Lewis' writing. Inserting something because you think he "meant" it is Original Research. It is not a formula limited to Muslims. Anti-semitic Muslims are merely a subset of anti-semitic humans. Javadane 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase simply indicates that Muslims often use the oath formula, which Lewis does say, without its inclusion the relavence is unclear, pleas stop removing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pls. explain why this quote is an example of "Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews". If you are unable to, then the quote is irrelevent.Bless sins 02:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It clearly shows an example of anti-semitism in the Islamic world, it is obviously relevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? Why is it then sooo difficult for someone to provide a source that says so? I don't dispute that its irrelevent to the article, only to the section. Saying that Muslims saying a few words is an an example of "Historic persecution" is absolutely ridiculous (unless otherwise shown by a reliable source). It should be moved to a more relevent section. Bless sins 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is OR: "As an example of referring to Jews dishonourably as an untrustworthy group...". Lewis never said this. This part of the quote should be removed.Bless sins 11:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's discussed in the passages preceding the quote. If you disagree with the placement of the quote, move it to a different section, but don't remove it or twist it to your liking. Pecher ^Talk 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of content

Pecher inappropriately removed the following under the jsutification of "removal of random website": "Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism Muslim organizations like the US based Muslim Wake Up! (MWU) have explicitly denounced anti-semitism. Harun Yahya, a modern Muslim writer, has also denounced anti-Semitism as a pagan, and therefore un-Islamic, ideology.[17] "

Firstly, it is not a "random" website, but an active organization. Secondly, the section containes the opinion of a prominent scholar (Harun Yahya), who yeilds influence over many Muslims. Pls. don't remove entire sections without justification on Talk.Bless sins 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's indeed a random anti-Zionist website, which only mascarades as a website against anti-Semitism. That's typical contemporary anti-Semitism, even if not terribly notable. Pecher ^Talk 18:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but "that's anti-Zionist" is not appropriate reason to remove it. If it's an influential organization, their stament should be included.--Marielleh 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually this site is pro-Palestinian and also pro-Jewish. The fact that it is very freindly to Jews is supported here.Bless sins 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that this website is sufficiently notable, we will include into the modern anti-Semitism section. Otherwise, it does not belong ot the article. Pecher ^Talk 07:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would we include a site that denounces anti-Semitism[18] in the "modern anti-Semitism" section? Why do you keep calling that site anti-semitic? Also, the section you removed also contains other examples, suich as that of Harun Yahya. Can you pls. justify your removal of his opinions.Bless sins 10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the site Muslim Wakeup was anti-Semitic, why would it feature the "Hug a Jew" campaign.Bless sins 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree that the Christian Science Monitor is inherantly anti-semitic, I do agree that that the op ed article that you have citied is inadmissible. If you were using it as a source for a very specific POV then it might possibly be okay, but it is clear that the writer is very deceptively advocating a particular view, he does it by first explaining how unbias and neutral he is, and then goes on to echo every tired old argument against Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a response another one of your silly removals. You removed: This verse should not be used by any mean to negate the fact that among the Jews (and Christians) will be righteous people who can be good friends as explained in the above verses, they do not fight us in our religion or our homes. They can be our neighbors, colleagues, friends, co-workers...etc We will be good to them as they are good to us. But you did not remove the content above it, even though the content above it and below it is from the same source. Why?? Also, the source is NOT providing any facts, but it is only providing one person's perspective.Bless sins 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've removed more material from the same unreliable source. Pecher ^Talk 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the source unreliable?? Rmember what you said just minutes ago:"If you dispute a reference, it is your responsibility to provide arguments why the source is unreliable".Bless sins 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Because my source is a scholarly journal, while yours is just a website run by a group of people, among thousands of similar websites. Pecher ^Talk 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet I have already aksed you for the first name of your author and you have not provided that to me. I've also asked you for a link, even that you have not provided. The source in question was just providing a POV and not a 'fact" as your souce is doing.Bless sins 11:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Historic Muslim respect for the Jews

The section obviously does not belong to the article, as the article's title is "Islam and anti-Semitism". Therefore, let's stick to the subject in question. Pecher ^Talk 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the purposes of this article is to show the "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". That is what this section was showing.Bless sins 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

However, this section says nothing on Muslim positions on anti-Semitism in Islam. Pecher ^Talk 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, the section on content within the Quran should be removed, since they're about Jews and not anti-semetism. Amibidhrohi 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But it soes say something about Muslim position on Jews.Bless sins 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing on the Muslim anti-Semitism, though. Pecher ^Talk 11:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pls read the statement again "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". Also, the section did say something about anti-Semitism. For example it contained the opinion of a popular Muslim scholar (named Harun Yahya) on anti-Semitism. you however, deleted that.Bless sins 11:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean a crypto-antisemitic writer named Harun Yahya? We've already gone through it. Pecher ^Talk 11:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are purposely responding to some statements of mine and not to others. I'll repeat: the article says clearly that it is about:"The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". Therefore facts relating to Jews (esp. those demonstrating denunciation of anti-Semitism) should be included. Now pls. don't go change the header of this article to accomodate your POV.172.167.162.23 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think that view is lacking from wikipedia. Why don't you starty an article about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, someone suggested that. However, what I worry about is that editors might consider it to be a POV fork. What would be really helpful is if editors could give their opinion below as to whether creating a seperate article where we would accomodate the following:

Muslim denunciation of anti-Semitism
Jewish-Muslim dialogue
Examples of Muslim tolerance and respect for Jews

It would be helpful if the users suggested their opinions below (whether a new article should be created, the section merged back into Islam and anti-Semitism, or the section be merged in some other article).Bless sins 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the title that that would be irrelevant to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you support creating a seperate article to accomodate this.Bless sins 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Other editors your comments would be appreciated:

If it was all properly sourced and NPOV it would be fine with me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

References to Jews

Please stop removing the referenced information indicating that the verses refer to Jews, as this is against policy. Not only do the references show that the verses refer to Jews, but Muslim sources agree. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I haven't deleted all the various apologetics you've inserted about the verses referring to Jews being transformed into apes as possibly being metaphorical, but please stop removing simple, well-sourced facts upon which all sources agree. Thanks again. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You, please stop removing the verses of the Quran, (else stop quoting them). Bless sins 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous Qur'an verses

Please stop re-inserting the various Qur'an verse referring to Jews as apes; this isn't an article about the Qur'an per se, but an article about accusations of anti-Semitism, and the links to the Qur'an are quite good enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about Islam. And anyone who knows anything about Islam, knows that the Quran is the most important piece of writing in that religion. Links to the Quran are not good enough, the reader has the right to see what the Quran REALLY says.Bless sins 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, instead of using X to justify that Y says Z, why not just put what Z is in the article (without any modifications). Pls. see this. Similarly, you only need to say what the Quran says. The facts speak for themselves.Bless sins 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this article is not about Islam, this article is about Islam and anti-Semitism, there is a difference. It does not make any sense to include long and somewhat difficult to read verses. It really just damages the article's quality.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So the Quran is not important enough of a document to be quoted? But some random websites are? It does not make sense to simplify a complex issue into a sentence. If you are going to use the Quran, you're going to have to quote it properly. Also, pls. see this. You should let the Quran speak for itself.Bless sins 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On the same account, I could remove the long Maimonides quote here, and sum in up in a sentence.Bless sins 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about Islam and anti-Semitism, not the Qur'an. WP:NOR insists we use secondary and tertiary sources, not primary ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, htis is about Islam and anti-Semitism. But the QUran is by far the most central and important piece of work in Islam. Memri, Frontpagemag etc... are nothing comparable to the importance of the quran. When you mention Islam, the Quran becomes immediately relevent.

As for WP:NOR, it states "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." We are not creating the Quran here, but merely quoting it. Furthermore, we explain the interpretation of the quran (which is sourced to scholarly sources) right below it.

WP:NOR continues, "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources."(emphasis added)

Jayjg, I don't know where you got your "we use secondary and tertiary sources, not primary ones" (emphasis added) claim from.Bless sins 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Islam and anti-Semitism, not about the Qur'an. Primary sources in the sense used here are sources which deal with Islam and anti-Semitism (though, of course, the real primary sources are the Qur'an etc.). Using the Qur'an to build a case of your own, as regards Islam and anti-Semitism, is pure original research. If you have reliable sources which say Islam is not anti-Semitic, then quote them, but stop inserting your own arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not building any case here. I'm against you misquoting the Quran. You started this when you put in the text " A number of verses in the Qur'an refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs ". The Quran says no such thing. What does the Quran say? Why not just quote the Quran itself. It's an official wikipedia policy to just state the facts. If you're going to allege something aginst the Quran, you're gonna have to quote it. Alternatively, you could just drop the statement about the Quran (and move the part to another section). But don't quote the Quran out of context! Bless sins 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement on the Quranic verses is an accurate summary of what these verses say, so please stop challenging it, unless you have reliable secondary sources, saying otherwise. Pecher ^Talk 09:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A reliable source is provided. There's a whole bunch of Muslim scholars denying that transformation ever did take place. Look at the paragraph below. What its meant to say is that there is no clear concensus on what these verses are tryng to say. Therefore the content you are treating as "fact" is not "fact" at all, you're just putting up a POV on the verses. On the other hand, the content I put up, NOBODY can dispute. What I put up is fact and fact only - its not at all POV. And it's an official wikipedia policy to just state the facts, and refrain from applying a POV on these facts. Bless sins 10:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quoting or misquoting the Qur'an; rather, I am quoting what reliable sources have to say about what the Qur'an says, as per policy. That includes both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. There is no source that claims that the Qur'an does not state that Jews were turned into apes or pigs. Yes, there are some apologetic sources which say these verses should not be understood literally, but no sources claim that the verses do not say this. Please stop removing properly sourced information. As well, the verses themselves are linked to, there's no need to keep inserting them. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The "apologetic" sources you keep referring to are BTW fundamentalists zealots, one executed for his radicalism. But that's beside the point. The source is not talking about something being understood one way or another, but rather what the quran is trying to say. It clearly disputes "the jews were transformed in apes and pigs". Once agian, if you are going to mention the quran, pls. do it in a proper way so that you provide the context of the verse. Else, one could totally vilify the relgion of Islam if he/she took quranic verses out of context. Have a nice dayBless sins 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day , this is where the argument stands.

Statement: "A number of verses in the Qur'an refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs".

Sources:

Unknown author at http://www.sacred-texts.com
A play [19]
A webpage[20],from controversial Memri. It is written by Aluma Solnick, whose credentials on the theology of Islam are unknown.
An article (or symposium) by Jamie Glazov [21], who has no credentials on the theology of Islam or the quran.
An article from James Arlandson, whose credentials on theology of Islam are unknown

Disputed: This argument is disputed by statements from Islamic scholars and experts on theology (according to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb)

Statement: The Quran says ( ^{[Quran 7:164]}^{[Quran 7:165]}^{[Quran 7:166]})

Sources:

^{[Quran 7:164]}^{[Quran 7:165]}^{[Quran 7:166]}
Translation of the Qur%27an p. 435-55
Many more can be provided upon request.

Disputed: No serious scholar disputes this statement. Absolutely none. Please re-examine your position(s).Bless sins 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikilink you cite appears not to have pages numbered 435-55, and anyhow, we can't cite Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, the MEMRI link would appear to be one of the most well-sourced discussions on this topic I've ever seen - certainly more so than your own original research interpretations of the Qur'an. Perhaps you're right that it's being misinterpreted, but so what? We're not here to determine what the Qur'an really means.

Anyhow, what's up with ^{[Quran 5:59]}?Timothy Usher 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My intention was never to cite wikipedia, I have the book I cited at home and can verify that it syas what I'm trying to put. The reaon I linked it so that you see the undiputability (if that's a word) of the book. ANyways I removed it.

Memri article is "well-sourced"? How? It's written by Aluma Solnick. How is she an expert on the Quran and Islamic theology? Remember "be ware of false authority".

"...more so than your own original research interpretations of the Qur'an." What orinignal research. Everything I put, I cite. What have i put that is OR?

"Perhaps you're right that it's being misinterpreted, but so what?" So what? Its bieng misinterpreted by people who are neither scholars on the quran nor on Islamic theology. What authority do they have to interpret (or misinterpret) the Quran? Only Muslim scholars have such an authority.Bless sins 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also one thing you should that begs to be considered is that the first statement is refuted by Muslim theologians and scholars, yet the second statement (that I'm trying to put in) is not disputed by anyone.Bless sins 11:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly in the wrong here, Bless sins. You replaced a paragraph of sourced secondary and tertiary information with nothing more than an excerpt from the Quran. If you have refutations of any sort from 'Muslim theologians and scholars', then source them and add them. - Merzbow 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How is the paragrph well sourced? How are Solnick, Arlandson, Glazov respected authorities on Quran and its interpretations. How is controversial Memri, that has been alleged of mistranslating by notable scholars (see [[Memri#controversy), a relaible source? Clealry Memri is not respected by the academics. Also, all these statements are cotnradicted by Islamic scholars, who actually have credentials in interpreting the Quran, who have written volumes of widely recognized and accepted Quranic commentary.Bless sins 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's so, then why are you unable to quote a single one of your scholars? I invite you to do so to provide an alternative POV. But blindly quoting and interpreting the Quran is a plain violation of the No Original Research policy. As for our 'scholars', there is no doubt that the sources referenced in the material Pecher is restoring are acceptable - they are links to magazine articles and research by think tanks. We have no obligation to do independent research to determine if this info is actually valid or not as long as the sources are acceptable to Wikipedia policy. Merzbow 17:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bless Sins has quoted several scholars (inc. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb) to have them deleted. His objections to Memri, etc... are based on Wikipedia's guidline on reliable sources which is part of the Verifiability policy. These are False Authorities without credentials in Islam. Memri is an organization with an agenda that is anti-Arab/Islam and is certainly not a reliable source. Indeed, in many cases the content of the sources contradict what they are claimed to state. The frontpagemag "symposium" has statements by Prof. Khaleel Mohammed that directly contradict the claim of anti-semitism in Islam. The Bernard Lewis misquote is discussed above. Javadane 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Memri most certainly qualifies as a reliable source, the fact that they don't have "Islamic creditials" is irrelevant. In fact it possibly makes them less predisposed to bias. Anyways we are not talking about interpretations, we are only talking about what the text actually says. The "sources" that Bless sins keeps providing only serve to obfuscate the actual issue.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

The article deals with "Islam and Anti-semetism". For material to not constitute original research here, it must be based on sources that speak of anti-semetism directly. Yes, it's true that Jews have suffered persecution under certain Muslim regimes, however their treatment was not particularly worse than that of other non-muslims minorities of their time. As such, while the regimes in question can (and should) be accused of "muslim supremacy", to label it 'anti-semetism' is incorrect. It's original research when the editor labels an act or statement 'anti-semetism' though his own judgement, and without reference to a third party, published and credible, source. Amibidhrohi 04:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's completely absurd. The definition of anti-Semitism (say, compared to "Islamophobia") is well-known. It's not original research to straightforwardly apply it.Timothy Usher 05:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The definition of anti-Semitism is NOT CLEAR. Is criticizing Israel anti-Semitism? There's two sides to the issue. Is calling Abraham a Muslim anti-semtism? Once again a harmless statement is turned into a debate. Please back ALL your arguments with sources. You are bascially calling "Islam" (1.2 billion people or 20% of mankind) to be anti-Semitic. This is an exceptional claim, which will reqire exceptional sources. Bless sins 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition of 'anti'-semetism' may be clear, but it's still original research and personal conjecture to apply the label to any person or event. I could, by the same token, label Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer 'islamophobes' and 'bigots' (the latter a pretty well-defined term), but I won't. Wikipedia requires that we use third party sources that make the associations. If a writer's article or book speaks of Islam and Islamophobia, that's totally kosher. An act against a Jewish group or individual or interest may not be labeled as anti-semetic itself. I'm sure finding such third-party statements of credible value wouldn't be hard. It's just that people here are too lazy (or too angry) to find credible sources.Amibidhrohi 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not original research at all. If you have a source (like a dictionary) that defines anti-semitism, then you have another source that states that something meets that definition, you are clearly able to present the material, there exists no conjecture in this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be an interesting issue for RfC then. I suppose describing Daniel Pipes as a bigot is therefore acceptable as well? Or is such commentary only permissible with the word 'anti-semetism'? Amibidhrohi 16:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty likely that an RfC, or more serious measures, will be necessary to fix this problem. I cannot see how editors , of their own judgement and choosing, labeling events and actions 'anti-semetic' can be permissible. Apprently any offense where a Jew was involved amounts to anti-semetism. The Quran saying Abraham was Muslim is anti-semetic? I know the charge of anti-semetism was an effective ad-hominem tool, but I didn't know its effect could be applied to history as well. Amibidhrohi 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

POV disputes, Original Research

I'm trying to keep these tags in place. This entire article is quite obviously set to support one single POV. It's full of original research. Much of it is made up of these editor's own bigotries and opinions, without sources to back them up (at this point, the question of sources being credible is a latter concern). I'm not going to bother trying to teach you what Original Research or POV are, you already know. To assume good faith on your part would be naive at this point. This article is nothing but right-wing Jewish propaganda aimed at smearing Islam. Amibidhrohi 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Islam claims"

What the hell does Islam claims mean? - If there is a claim in the qur'an, cite it. If its from a hadith, cite it. If its from a Muslim, Cite it. "Islam" can not "claim" anything, it's texts or proponents can though.--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Timothy Usher 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert solicitation

For the record, this article has been advertised to the members of Wikipedia Muslim Guild as an article that needs attention. Pecher ^Talk 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, to recruit “Muslim participation” against “Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind”[22],[23], in a spirit consistent with this (currently blocked) user’s post above[24].Timothy Usher 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

God knows how much solicitation is done outside of wikipedia. ANyways, is askign others to come look at article wrong? Is it against wikipedia policy?Bless sins 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, see WP:SPAM: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." People have already been blocked for solicitation. Pecher ^Talk 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

I have few questions about this article? Please do not take me wrongly and I do not intend to attack on any group. I do not understand that why this article exist in the first place. If you believe that Islam is a religion against Jew then it is wrong. If you think that many/few Muslims are against Jew then so what? There are Christians against Muslims, Jews against Muslims (so on...) but one should never label the whole community. The article will not give any advantage to Jews; in fact the article itself is insult of Jews. See For example let say someone abuse Islam or my Prophet (PBUH). If I write that abuse at my user page then I am making more people read that abuse. Hence I am myself more abusing my religion. Also if a Muslim (with no information about this subject) read this article then he will say. Okay if my religion is against Jew then I will be against Jew too. Hence this article is spreading hate. This article is not good for Muslim or Jew or for wikipedia. It is against inter-faith harmony and friendship. We should give good examples instead of spending our energies in finding bad example. We should spread love instead of hate. I will also appose strickly any article like Jew and anti-Islam --- Faisal 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Faisals intentions, though I don't think that WP should suppress information, if they are notable and well sourced (see Irishpunktoms comment). To improve inter-faith harmony and friendship the article certainly should include good examples as well, even if the title is called "Islam and anti-Semitism". Raphael1 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, there are indeed such articles, e.g. Christianity and anti-Semitism. That Jews have been mistreated in the name of both Christianity and Islam is a historical fact. Muhammad himself denounced and murdered Jews, while "rightly-guided caliphs" like Umar expelled them.

Your argument is by no means a trivial one - if we present this information rather than suppress it, won't that encourage people to emulate Muhammad's example? It's a difficult question, and one which preoccupies the very highest levels of decision-making among the world's major powers. If we can present a false picture of Islam history in which all was peaceful and tolerant until just the other day, doesn't that help give cover to liberalized moderates who claim to represent the "True Islam"?

However, I think history shows this to be ill-advised - the West's frank acknowledgement of its crimes has proved therapeutic, while the self-righteous view of Islamic history promoted in some regions has served to perpetuate moral errors that might otherwise have been addressed. In any case, there are already people running around slaughtering innocents in the name of returning to the original values of Muhammad and his companions. I see no reason to think they were inspired by Wikipedia.

Anyhow, as this is an encyclopedia, we're not obliged to burnden ourselves with such socio-political considerations, however valid.Timothy Usher 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Timothy. Pecher ^Talk 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy you said "Muhammad himself denounced and murdered Jews" (to which Pecher said "well said"). It's interesting the way you see the Prophet whose way of life represents the beliefs of 20% of humanity.Bless sins 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not my view, but that of Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq and the Hadith. All the data comes from devout admirers of Muhammad, who considered his actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious.Timothy Usher 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then every Muslim should do what you have said above. I idealize Muhammad (PBUH), and after having above information I will also follow Muhammad (PBUH) Sunnah. Thank you for the information. --- Faisal 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been protected due to this edit war that is happening. When the page is ready to be unprotected, let me know. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No discussion has occurred for the past two weeks. Unless there are objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi + anti-Semitism?

This section struck me as odd. It says "When Muslim armies conquered nations, people of the Book (a category including Jews) were theoretically not forced to convert to Islam"... so, when Communists armies conquered nations, capitalists (a categoriy including Jews)... my point is, to be anti-Semitic the motivation has to be that they are Jewish. This is by no means to say that many practicing Muslims didn't discriminate against Jews because of Jewishness (anti-Semitism) or that dhimma isn't a type of discrimination. However, hating a Jew because he is old is not anti-Semitism... it's ageism. Dhimmi was (in most places) the same law as extended to Christians and in some places to Zoroastrians and Hindus. It is a tricky subject and it should be addressed but it needs to be addressed carefully. On the subject of the constitution of Medina, nothing mentioned about it is anti-Semitic. Muhammad favored the Muslims? well, while it may mean he's not a universalist trying to gain more rights for your group is not anti-Semitism. That is tribal dnynamics... I do think it would be much easier to create a "Islam and anti-paganism" article because (I should read up on this) their motivations are in some case specifically because their adversaries are pagan. gren グレン 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article on The Koran and Anti-Semitism

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956: on 'The Koran and Anti-Semitism'.Reza1 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where in the Article do I put institutional anti-Semitism in the Muslim world?

In contemporary Muslim world, there is some institutional anti-Semitism. For instance, Arab countries routinely feature cartoons that caricaturize Jews as "cannibals" or "puppeteers"

here

Full section here.

Also, Iran has published holocaust-denial cartoons, and Ahmadinezhad has denied the holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel. Regarding anti-Semitism in Pakistan:

In 1996 Pakistani officials continued to condemn the Middle East peace process and to declare that Pakistan would not establish relations with Israel until Israel fully implemented UN resolutions.

The media in Pakistan have provided extensive coverage of the political and personal career of the cricket star Imran Khan. Since Khan's marriage in 1996 to Jemima Goldsmith, daughter of a British industrialist and politician, Sir James Goldsmith, Khan was accused of acting as an agent of the "Jewish lobby." Jemima Khan publicly denied that her parents were Jewish. An Egyptian newpaper distributed in Pakistan accused Khan of receiving large sums of money for his election campaign from the "Jewish lobby." Following complaints from Khan, the deputy editor of the newspaper retracted the story and published an apology.

Since India established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, the Pakistani media have repeatedly referred to the “Zionist threat on our borders,” and occasionally combine both anti-Zionist and antisemitic rhetoric. This is particularly common in the Islamist press, but also occurs in mainstream publications.

Should this be entitled under a new section called "Institutional antisemitism (or antisemitism in the media) in the Muslim world" or what? Netaji 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism from Islamist groups in South Asia

Here is the extract from the article cited:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2001/01/05/stories/040555ra.htm

The Markaz, an Ahle Hadith organisation of Wahabi orientation, was initially very close to Saudi Arabia, but seems to have developed differences with it because of its proximity to Osama and of its contention that even Saudi Arabia does not have an ideal Islamic society. Its criticism of the stationing of the US and other Western troops in Saudi Arabia also contributed to this. It describes the Hindus and Jews, in that order, as the main enemies of Islam and India and Israel as the main enemies of Pakistan. Its Amir, Prof Saeed, is a strong opponent of Western-style democracy.

Markaz is the political wing of Lashkar-e-ToibaShiva's Trident 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, This is what you wrote:

The Indian Jewish community has recently suffered from anti-Semitism from Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, who have declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies of Pakistan

Now where does it state that Indian Jewish community has come under attack from the LeT?Omerlives 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said they were attacked. Fine, I'll remove the bit about Indian Jews, but the rhetoric of LeT is clearly anti-Semitic and should be mentioned.Shiva's Trident 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't play with words. Your POV was crystal clear. I am not against anyone's adding Iran's premiers words and LeT's words under antisemitic rhetoric as long as it done with NPOV and without superfluos information.Omerlives 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained your point at all, only flamed.Shiva's Trident 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what your rewording read:

Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba have also expressed anti-Semitic views. Their propaganda arm has declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies ofPakistan.

inaccurate part: no where have they declared Indian jews to be enemies of Islam but their declaration was for Jewish folks in general.

Superflous part: the bits about hindus and india. This is about antisemitism, emanating from some quarters in the muslim world not hate about other non muslim groups in general. Read the Alqaeda part which too has had variosu declarations aganinst Jewish people as well as West and Christians. Again, the article is restricted to antisemitism.Omerlives 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK.Shiva's Trident 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all references specific to Indian Jews (since the source does not mention them explicitly). I had (perhaps erroneously) assumed LeT meant one of the 5 major Jewish Communities in India, but maybe they're talking about all of Jewry in general.Shiva's Trident 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Arabs are Semites too

Just to let people know that Arabs are Semites as well. They speak Arabic, which is a branch of Hebrew, which is a Semetic language. So when people say that Arabs are Anti-Semetic, it means that Arabs are self haters, which doesnt make sense. Arabs and Muslims do not hate the Jews, as they are told in the Quran to respect all religions. The Jews, as well as the Christians, are referred to as "The People of the Book," and Muslims share a close relationship to them. For exampe, Muslims are allowed to eat their meat.

Unfortunately, the view on Islam has become a negative one, where these "terrorists" use the name of Islam and God to justify what they are doing to innocent civilians. People need to be aware that Arabs and Muslims do not think that way at all. After all, who in the world doesnt want peace. NOte the above was left by Nalalami

This is how I used to feel too, but in my experience Muslims want peace but not peace with Israel, or at least not with an Israel that is not a Muslim-majority state. It is really a sad thing because we are cousins, really, but this is how it is. Elizmr 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic means anti-Jew. It doesn't matter if their languages are considered part of the same family. As for saying that they don't hate Jews, that is quite frankly untrue. Anti-Semitism is everywhere, I mean everywhere in the Muslim world, and the Qu'Ran states very clearly, over and over, that Muslims should take over the world. This isn't biased. This is the truth. User:Unnoticed

Pew global statistics reported that 100% of Jordan's population is antisemitic, as well as some 75% of Pakistan's population and more than 60% of Saudi Arabia's population. Also, see http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm . They even say that the Pope is a "Jewish puppet" </rolls eyes over head>.Hkelkar

For once, please do not jump and claim all ownership to the term 'Semitic', it is a historical fact that Arabs are semitic, [refer to A history of Saracens/Arabs]. The title of this article therefore is incorrect, in that it refutes itself. An Arab cannot be anti-semitic (by definition). Arab-Israel contentions are a different topic, entirely.

PS. It cannot be stressed enough, and is vigorously ignored, but while writing for a global audience, PLEASE leave your biases at home. It will serve none of us.

I happened to read on this site (wikipedia) that the negative form of the adjective semitic (i.e. anti-semitic) is almost always used as a misnomer to mean "anti-Jewish" specifically. Further discussion on the issue of the true meaning of "semitic" and "anti-semitic" would be really pointless. Nontheless, the way the adjective is commonly used unfortunately continues to exclude other semites and there seems to be no attempt to correct this so that the (possibly) percieved disregard for the importance of other (non-Jewish) semites is no longer implicit in the real meaning of the word. Please correct me if I am wrong.

By the way, quoting from wikipedia again, "The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile")." Bardylis 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree

I tottally agree with this artical, I am sorry if some of you are mad about that fact, but I think it is the truth

Important quote needs to be mentioned

This is probably the most important Islamic quote regarding Jews that needs to be mentioned; “You will battle the Jews until one of them will hide behind a rock. (The rock) will say: ‘O ‘Abdullaah (Worshiping slave of Allaah)! Behind me hides a Jew come and slay him.’” [[25]] This is from the Hadeeth Chaldean 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

More Agreement!

Far from exagerated, adding to the facts, there are many more instances of historic repression of Jews by Muslims in the way of expulsions and massacres. This discussion is being dominated by Muslims who wish to drown out any criticism of themselves - their religion, while piling up their own against their perceived enemies. The Atlas of Jewish History - find it - lists centuries of Arab and Islamic oppression against Jews throughout the Middle-East and North Africa. There were at least two events every century. Even Spain was not as wonderful a utopia as some modern apologists wish to make it seem. If anything, Muslims were quicker to profit from collaboration with Jews, until some small event or even rumor would set off a killing frenzy that always seemed to finish with the Jewish population, what remained of it, being driven away, while their property and wealth was confiscated. At least in Europe, policy was made clear, but some region(s) of Europe were always safe enough for Jews to survive. In Europe, despite the repetitions of persecution, the Ashkenazi Jews contributed greatly to many communities and survived to be the largest of all world Jewish populations. And remember that in the late 19th century, even the German Kaiser remarked upon his visit, how wasted the region of Palestine was by the Muslim Arabs and Ottomans. It was the Jews who drained the swamps, defeated malaria and devloped land that could be farmed. This modern epic of Islamic rage against the West is caused more by envy and embarassment than any historical or present wrongdoing or even present American Foriegn Policy. We are dealing with entire peoples who would rather die than admit that they are wrong and have done wrong. These ridiculous arguments against what I see as the very spare history of anti-Jewish acts by Arabs and Muslims on this Wikipedia article will persist until Wikipedia cowtows to the pressure and the espouses the modern myth that Muslims were kind and Jews flourished among them until 1948 and the "despicable" act of the U.N. in recognizing a long needed correction of history in cooperating to give World Jewry back the nation European Rome robbed them of and the debt the entire World owed the Jews. Recall that these kind Islamic Arab nations drove their Jewish populations out as soon as they lost the 1948 war against the newly establish nation of Israel. Yet these same people daily decry prejudice in their Western host nations. Keep this article and expand it! Far too short.

page move

Considering the vast majority of this article deals with Muslims, either in specifics or in general, and has very little on the actual religion of Islam, I have been bold enough to move it to a more appropriate title. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how the "actual religion of Islam" is different from its practice by the Muslims. Beit Or 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In what respect? Muslims carry out actions, Islam is a religion. Muslims carry out actions that other muslims say are unislamic, but still carried out by Muslims. Please explain your opposition more clearly. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam is what Muslims teach and do. There is no idealized Islam that would exist independently of the people who practice this religion. Beit Or 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, what?! Muslims teach cricket and play (do) cricket, and tht has nothing to do with Islam. As detailed in the opening of this article, antisemitism is not a part of Islam, but has been used and abused by Muslims. As such, a more accurate reflection of the incidence and its history would be Muslims (the folks who did/do it) and antisemitism (what those folks did/do) --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article deals at length with the beliefs of Islam regarding Jews, and the interpretations of scholars of Islam on that topic. As such, it quotes the Qur'an, sharia, etc. Therefore, a move makes little sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The opening of the article, mentioned by Irishpunktom, only gives one leapfrog-cited opinion of one scholar, who is hardly an expert on antisemitism, that antisemitism was not part of medieval Islam. It is unprecedented on Wikipedia to start an article with a denial of its subject; as a result, the whole article looks extremely tendentious. Beit Or 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The intro was re-written by an editor who is enamored with Lewis, and who is attempting to debunk the notion. It's poorly written and tendentious, as you say. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This love affair is of a weird sort: this editor seems to have forgotten that Lewis has written Semites and anti-Semites, which is all about antisemitism in the modern Muslim world. Beit Or 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing... and more

To begin such an article with the quote "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam.^[1] is POV. We already discussed this elsewhere. I suspect that this quote is taken out of context. Also, let's try to introduce some structure to this amorphous text. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I welcome your efforts in restoring reasonableness in this article. I'm not entirely happy with the current intro, which does not adequately summarize the article's content, but it's light years ahead of what it was. Beit Or 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive comment

We all know very well that the Qur'an contains many contradictory verses about Jews and Christians (the article now gives a cursory treatment to this issue). Hopefully, editors will not attempt to insert verses like "There is no compulsion in religion" (see the article's title). Beit Or 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam

Unless a paragraph is not tied to Anti-semtism by the author it shouldn't be included in anti-semitism articles. --Aminz 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholars write for reasonable audience and do not start each and every paragraph with an introduction "the following is about antisemitism". Usually, they hold such things to be self-evident. Beit Or 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They should write it at least once at the beginning, shouldn't they? Or they should wait till the last paragraph and then say, the antisemitism ideas was too new!!--Aminz 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, people are tired of your attempts to wikilawyer Muslim vilification and persecution of Jews out of Wikipedia on the grounds that vilifying and persecuting Jews is not necessarily antisemitism. It is. Lewis is the only one who redefines antisemitism so as to exclude anything, but its Christian and Christianity-influenced variety. There is a huge literature on antisemitism, and nearly every where antisemitism is defined in a more orthodox fashion, just like in the Wikipedia article on this phenomenon. So, as far as I am concerned, I have no intention of dicussing this issue any further. Beit Or 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio links

I have noticed that this article (and, presumably, other articles too) contains many links to a collection of English translations of Muslim texts. While the texts themselves are obviously not copyrighted, their English translations most certainly are. Thus, this site looks like one huge copyvio to which we should never link. Beit Or 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic scholars??

This article uses quotes from Gerber, and Lewis to describe the interpretation of the Quranic verses describing the Jews. The fact is that only a Muslim scholar, with appropriate education in Islamic Law and Quranic studies can interpret the Quranic verses to mean any thing. That does not mean that Quranic verses can't be quoted. It only means that those who are not (Islamic) scholars can't say "the quran says such and such". Thus there are portion of the section the "Jews in the Quran" for which better references must be found or they must be deleted. 74.12.13.44 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please expalin how the following are credible scholars on the study of the Quran, and its interpretations, known as tafsir? (They may be distinguished in the field of medieval history, politics of the Muslim world, Arabic etc. but that's not what I'm asking).

Bernard Lewis
Walter Lacqueur
Jane Gerber

I am only asking since these scholars are used as sources in the section "Jews in the Quran".Bless sins 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me how the above mentioned scholars (in some fields) are scholars in the field of tafsir and Quran.Bless sins 13:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything in Islam_and_antisemitism#Jews_in_the_Qur.27an from "The words "humility" and "humilitation" occur frequently in the Qur'an... " to the end of the section is sourced to one of the above mentioned scholars (except reference # 7). Can you please show how the above mentioned are reliable sources on the QURAN and the tafsir or interpretation of it.Bless sins 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reponse here:

Other very biased statements in this article: "They refused to accept Muhammad's teachings, and eventually he fought them, defeated them, and most of them were killed" " The traditional biographies of Muhammad describe the expulsion of the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir from Medina, the massacre of Banu Qurayza, and Muhammad's attack on the Jews of Khaybar. The rabbis of Medina are singled out as "men whose malice and enmity was aimed at the Apostle of God [i.e., Muhammad]". "

These statements MUST be taken in context. That is, they must show that these actions of muslims were in response to Jews attempting to assasinate Muahmmad, and (in case of Banu Qurayza), the Jews attempted to attack the Muslims they were at peace with.Bless sins 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You definitely should familiarize yourself with the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. The only attempts at Muhammad's life described in these biographies were by the women whose husbands were killed on Muhammad's orders. Beit Or 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The expusion of Banu Nadir happened after the tribe challenged Muhammed as the leader of Medina, and fought a battle with him, and he received information of their assination, from "revelations" and from other individuals, (see Banu_Nadhir#Expulsion_from_Medina). A similar battle happened before the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa (see Banu_Qaynuqa#Expulsion_of_the_Banu_Qaynuqa). The treachery of Banu Qurayza is well-known.

These instances MUST be mentioned. To say that the Americans blindly massacred the Japanese civilians at Hiropshima is very POV and inaccurate. It must be mentioned that the two countries were at war, which the Japanese started. Similarly the treachery and war like nature of the Jewish tribes MUST be mentioned, despite the fact that Muhammad extended a hand of friendship to them through the Constitution of Medina.Bless sins 13:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your point about Hiroshima, it's quite misguided to assume that the COM (if it indeed dates fromt his period) was a "hand of friendship" - it required Jews to give up their livelihood (trade), join in Muhammad's war against the Quraysh, and accept Muhammad as the leader of Medina. That would be analogous to America having demanding that Imperial Japan give up all its colonies, declare war on Germany and accept Roosevelt as their new emperor - no "hand of frendship" at all.Proabivouac 11:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No the COM required Jews to accept Muhammad, as a judge should a dispute arise. In anycase, the fact that Jews didn't object to this, must be mentioned.Bless sins 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis certainly doesn't seem to think so, and I find it rather bizarre how they are said to have agreed to this (unless under duress?) and then proceed to scheme against him, attempt to assasinate him, ally with the Quraysh, etc. That said, read the COM, it prohibits them from trading with Mecca, while demanding they join a war that was made inevitable by piracy against Meccan caravans, in the spoils of which the Jews had no share. What possible benefit could they have found in acceding to this?Proabivouac 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

They surely would've benefitted as Muhammad ended the decade (even century) long civil war between the pagan and the Jews.Bless sins 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag

The tags are supposed to specify the issue as accurately as possible. All the tags are created by us. Should you state a policy requiring the tag to go, it can be removed. --Aminz 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin asked for the reasons for the tag. Well as it is clear from the two versions, the dispute is that Encyclopedia of Islam, Bernard Lewis, Claude Cahen et al are reliable sources. It is the same dispute over the antisemtism article. --Aminz 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Antisemitism how Aminz lost that dispute. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

H.S. I didn't lose that. I really don't wish to bring this issue to RfC. It won't be good for any of us and I don't have any personal problem with any particular editor. I am really trying to discuss this on the talk pages. --Aminz 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You still don't say what exactly you're disputing. Beit Or 08:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, could you state in a clear and concise way what you think is factually inaccurate in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated in the Antisemitism talk page, some scholars such as Cahen don't believe there was any antisemitism, while others argue there was indeed some little antisemitism. For example, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion has only one sentence to say about Islam as far as I remember and that sentence is: "In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." Claude Cahen in Dhimmi article when touching the Antisemitism states: "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism". According to S. D. Goitein (the source which Humus Sapiens used when Johnson used it but removed it when I used it), writes: "For Islam, see the concise, up-to-date, and authorative article "Dhimma" by Claude Cahen in EI, which registers also the relevant material."

If the article wants to be summerized in one or two sentences, it should be the summary of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion or that of Cahen. Mark Cohen also quotes "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism"

Another point is usage of Encyclopaedia Judaica I stated my concerns about the way it was quoted in Antisemitism talk page. Aside from these points, any quote from this source should be attributed to it. I am not yet convinced that this source should be considered like Academic Encyclopedias on Judaism or on the other hand something like Catholic Encyclopedia or Jewish Encyclopedia. There are other problems with the way the source is presented which at the moment is not my main concern. --Aminz 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You have so far did not cite any scholar of antisemitism proper, who would agree with your POV. Beit Or 07:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All the sources I've used are notable and academic. Claude Cahen, Bernard Lewis, The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism, etc etc --Aminz 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, care to give me a quick briefing? --Striver 12:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL! Striver first reverted[26], then asked what's going on! Beit Or 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious for any editor to see the existence of a dispute on the talk page. If not from here, the article is clear on that point. --Aminz 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response is hostile and non sequitur. You must cite scholars of antisemitism when editing this topic. Beit Or 10:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? Now try to look at the first section of the article "Quran on Jews". Not only must you quote scholars on anti-Semitism, more importantly you must quote credible scholars of Quran as well. Getting scholars with little education on Quran is ok for quoting historical facts, general Muslim attitude, politics of anti-Semitism etc. But in order to compare Quran with Jews and/or anti-Semitism, you need Quranic scholars with proper education in Quran.Bless sins 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you know that the predominant interpretation of these Quranic verses is different among the ulema, then say so, citing sources. Otherwise, your argument makes no sense. Beit Or 13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That is beside the point. I am not saying that the info in the article is false. I am saying that the info is not verified or referenced to proper sources. Only authorities on the Quran can be quoted to give a fair perspective on what the Quran says. For example I can't quote an Islamic scholar to argue "the Torah says such and such". I need to quote a respected Rabbi, or someone with a distinguished academic background in the Torah. Similarly, you need someone with a strong academic background in the Quran (and even Islamic Law, Fiqh and hadith) to interret what the Quran says. I have already said this several times on this page (see section above). I don't want to keep repeating myself.Bless sins 13:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're not stating what material in the article is wrong and how it can be made right. The section on the Qur'an is sourced to proper, reliable academic sources, so your objections regarding reliability look weird. Beit Or 13:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, at this point in time I am not question some particular statements. Rather I am asking you to show me how some a particular person qualifies to be a Quranic scholar. Let's take our discussiong to the section above ("Islamic scholars??") that I created (more than 20 days ago) to handle this very issue. You can respond under "Response here:" Bless sins 13:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't question any content, then it's not even content dispute. I cannot see any reason for continuing this discussion. Beit Or 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am questioning some content. See section above.Bless sins 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica

There is a reference to the Encyclopedia Judaica in this article, but it does not specify where in the encyclopedia this quote is. Please add this to the reference.--Sefringle 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article "Anti-Semitism". The full quote is: "From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God." Beit Or 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Encyclopedia Judaica a sound authority on the Quran?Bless sins 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is it not? It is just as much an authority as some of these other propaganda sources.--Sefringle 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly Encyclopedia Judaica is not one of the "Propoganda sources", but a reliable source. Secondly, even if it (or anything else) was, it would generally be not a reliable source. Encyclopedia Judaica is a very good authority on Judaism but not on Quran, Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib or any other non-Jewish scripture. To comment on the Quran you need an authority on the Quran.Bless sins 04:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. The requirements for reliable sources do not say that only Muslims are reliable sources on the Qur'an. Secular scholarly sources are acceptable on every subject. This is especially true here, since Leon Poliakov is one of the greatest authorities on antisemitism. Beit Or 10:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why Esposito, Montgomery Watt, Martin Lings and Maxime Rodinson are non-Muslim, but very good scholars on Islam. The requirement of reliable source says that the reliable source must be relevent. Thus one has to be a scholar on Islam to be a reliable source on Islam. Just as a scholar on Islam isn't necessarily a good authority on Judaism, a scholar on Judaism isnt necessarily a good authority on Islam.

Secondly, is the concept of interpretation of the Quran. This is a specialized field of study called the tafsir (Exegesis). I never said that only Muslims can be an authority on the Quran. Anyone who has written a scholarly tafsir, can be an authority on the Quran. However, it is perfectly natural to find that there are more Muslim scholars on Islam thatn non-Muslim scholars.Bless sins 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"The requirement of reliable source says that the reliable source must be relevent." Exactly. One has to be a scholar of antisemitism to write about antisemitism. However, the more you're continuing your arguments, the less I understand what you're arguing about. Beit Or 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And one has to be a scholar of the Quran to write about the Quran. Can you simply show how the scholar you have cited is a scholar on Quranic studies? What part of this sentence do you not understand?Bless sins 20:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any response to this Beit Or?? Also, I'm removing long-standing unsourced material.Bless sins 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This (and more) material could be sourced after five minutes of googling. All one needs is approach this article with the desire to improve Wikipedia rather than hide unpleasant facts. Beit Or 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into an argument with you over bad faith. A recent history of this article shows clearly what you have done, and what exactly it is that you desire.

But in any case, the quotes you have just added, are attributed to a small minority of non-notable persons. Giving these persons so much space (as their quotes are quite lengthy) is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight.Bless sins 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have barely scratched the surface. In principle, thousands of similar quotes can be produced. Beit Or 19:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. "Thousands" of quotes attributed to a small minority don't deserve the room they currently have on wikipedia. Pls. respond to my arguments above also.Bless sins 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Bless sins

Can you please justify your reversions here:Bless sins 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You have removed the sentence "Muhammad's attitude towards Jews was shaped by his failure to convert them to the religion he preached." for no apparent reason: it is important to know why Muhammad was so hostile to Jews.
You have inappropriately changed "he fought them" to "violence broke out". Violence cannot just "break out"; someone starts it. In addition, you removed the result of the Jewish defeat.

In so doing, you have changed the meaning of the referenced text, apparently without even checking the sources. Beit Or 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you could have partially reverted my edits. For example, the sectioned about Muhammad and Jews does not belong in the "Quran on Jews" section. BUt you reverted to put that back there.

1. There was a good reason. We don't need "failure to convert them" and "Jews refused to accept his teachings", both. Both basically mean the same thing and are just redundant. Secondly, how is Lacquer a reliable source on analyzing Muhammad's thought? To report an event and to analyze it are two different things. The former can be achieved by a reprter, but the latter requires good academic background. Had he written some sort of biography of Muhammad, or had some academic background on him, he could certainly make such a statement.

2.a) Certainly violence did break out. Check the Banu Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Qurayza articles and you will see that violence broke out (all the article are well-sourced), i.e. the Jews and Muslims started fighting each other. To say that Muhammad simply fought the Jews is inaccurate. You need to present the situation in context.

2. b)"you removed the result of the Jewish defeat" No I didn't. I specifically put in " in which the Jews were defeated".

Lastly, it is important to put Lacquer's view in context because he says "most of them were killed". He doesn't mention the trial (to which the Banu qurayza accepted) and also doesn't mention the fact that 2 out of 3 tribes were expelled not killed.Bless sins 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please support your claims with references to ibn Ishaq. Muhammad attacked the Jews, expelling Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir and massacring the men of the Banu Qurayza. The Qurayza never accepted any "trial". Muhammad just permitted the dying Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to decide what to do with them. Beit Or 09:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Ibn Ishaq is not the only scholar in history to write about Muhammad. There are other scholars too. Secondly, the Qurayza did accept the trial. See Muhammad_and_the_Jews. It says "Muhammad met this feeling by suggesting that the fate of Qurayza should be decided by one of their Muslim allies...A suggestion to which the Jews agreed." It is referenced to this. Can you bring forht a reliable source that says the Qurayza didn't accept the trial, and in fact rejected it?Bless sins 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the "trial" is just your invention. The Aws pleaded Muhammad on behalf of the Jews, and the Jews indeed agreed that one of the Aws (not necessarily Sa'd) would be an artbitrator. No "trial" is ever mentioned in the sources. Beit Or 13:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to re-check my sources about a "trial". In any case there was an "artbitrator" (like you said), or a judge. The Banu Qurayza agreed that their fate would be in the hands of such a judge, and had no objections if the judge was from the Aws. We need to mention that as part of a context. Bless sins 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What we also need to do is take out Lacquer's statement that "most Jews were killed" and replace it with "_____ and ______ were expelled, while ______ was killed in accordance with a judgement passed by Sa'd". We can play around with the format, but it needs to be mentioned that 2 out of 3 Jewish tribes were expelled and not killed.Bless sins 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some edits putting the conflicts with the three tribes in context, please discuss on talk beofre reverting.Bless sins 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have completely distorted what reliable sources say on the issue. I have reverted them. Beit Or 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't remove any sources, like you alleged in the edit summary. Secondly, if I distorted what the sources says, then you can perhaps correct that. re-phrase what I am saying to what you think the sources say. Right now I don't know what problem you have with my edits, cause you reverted all my edits without any consideration whatsoever. Furthermore, all you post is one sentence on talk page. That doesn't really say anything.Bless sins 20:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa after intense fighting broke out broke out between the Muslims and Jews of Medina and Muhammad's attempt to reconcile the tribe failed" is sheer nonsense. Provide specific quotes from ibn Ishaq or ibn Hisham that you think support your edit. Beit Or 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're ok with the rest of the edits I made? You constantly revert my edits, but don't justify them on the talk page. In the statement above, you have attempted to justify the reversion of only part of edits while you reverted all of them.

' "..." is sheer nonsense'. The edits I put in are sourced to reliable sources. I don't know why you are always asking for "specific quotes from ibn Ishaq or ibn Hisham". You yourself defended a redundant quote by Lacquer here. Secondly it is clear wikipedia policy that I can't plagiarize from an author. Thus I, like all other editors, put into their own words what they read from other sources. Besides the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you have a problem with the sources I have quoted, say so. If you think I'm misrepresenting sources, then say so. Saying "is sheer nonsense" doesn't say anything at all.Bless sins 20:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sourced to reliable sources"? You must be kidding. Akram Diya al Umari is a nonnotable writer, his book is obviously hagiogrpahic, and it was published by International Institute of Islamic Thought, an institution financed by the Muslim Brotherhood, a widely acknowledged organzation. It's not a reliable source. You have failed to provide a page number for ibn Hisham. If you're using an online version, provide a link. In any case, please provide a direct quote on the talk page that you think supports your edit. Beit Or 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Akram Diya al Umari is a Sirah and Sunnah studies professor and according to this site[27] a "renowned scholar". Also, his field of study (Sira) is more relevent than that of Lacquer who is quoted. That his work is published by an institution (once again relevent to the topic) makes it more reliable.

Also, why am I under the obligation to "please provide a direct quote on the talk page"? If this is per wikipedia policy, then likewise you (or other editors) should also be under the obligation to provide such quotes to justify the various parts of the article.Bless sins 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, soundvision.com is an authority... I have requested you to provide a quote because I don't remember seeing in the source what you're trying to attribute to it. You're expected to provide a quote and a proper reference if you want to support your position. Beit Or 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the man is an academic on the topic. Besdes I've posted other sources as well.Bless sins 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic? What's the source for that claim? You canot in no way cite what he says as fact. Even if he were notable and admissible, his claims would only be religious Muslim POV. Beit Or 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BeitOr, you have totally misprepresented sources on the description of the events with the Banu Qaynuqa. You removed the part of about Muhammad's negotiations, and also the part about a quarrel.Bless sins 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have been extremely POV. The episode on the market is not accepted by modern historians as the true reason for the expulsion of the Qaynuqa: "When Muhammad felt his position strengthened by the battle of Badr, he must soon have determined on expelling his enemies. The Kaynukah, as they lived in the city itself, were the first he wished to be rid of. Regarded in this light, his attack on the Kaynukah (in all probability as early as Shawwal 2/April 624) is sufficiently explained. Special reasons for the attack given by Muslim writers have no more than anecdotal value." ("Kaynuka". Encyclopaedia of Islam). Regarding Watt, show me the quote that supports the claim of negotiations and point me to the passage from ibn Ishaq on which this claim is based. Beit Or 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the article says "The traditional biographies of Muhammad describe...", "modern historians" aren't exactly traditional. Secondly, modern [Western] historians aren't the only ones on earth. There have been historians thorughout history such as Ibn Kathir, whom I have referenced. The Ibn Kathir reference is a work that was also reviewed by some modern academics. Besides we can mention both the Battle of Badr, and the marketplace quarrel in there. You can find the exact quotes to my references here. Also, not everything that happened in the life of Muhammad will be in Ibn Ishaq. Bless sins 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Presenting just the sira, without commenting on its historicity is POV and unacceptable. It's best to leave the unhistorical and irrelevant details out of this article altogether. Beit Or 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. You're saying that details presented by Ibn Kathir, Montgomery Watt etc. are "unhistorical"?Bless sins 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, once again, you accuse me of something I didn't do. You accuse my edit of bieng a "plain revert"[28]. This is not true. I included the mentioning of Battle of Badr, which you wanted, as is clearly seen in my edit.Bless sins 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep stating the details from the Muslim hagiography as fact. This is not NPOV. Beit Or 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep stating the details from a crtical work as fact. This is not NPOV. And btw, how is Watt's work a "hagiography".Bless sins 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you are free to add material from critcal works to provide a more complete perspective. Your last two edits [29][30] have done nothing of the sort.Bless sins 16:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to take the stance that Ibn Ishaq was a good historian by modern standards, then we should start discussing the assassination of Muhammad's political opponents and the torture of a man and enslavement of his wife in the main Islam articles. Arrow740 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or has been insisting upon Ibn Ishaq. I, on the other hand, quote Ibn Kathir. But yes, let's decide who is a good source and who isn't.Bless sins 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with presenting Muslim POV and the sentence makes this clear. --Aminz 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think if we start "discussing the assassination of Muhammad's political opponents and the torture of a man and enslavement of his wife" we have to put in something about behaviour being in the context of society at the time. I mean we are talking a millenium before the spanish inquisition even... --BozMo talk 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article

It's a breath of fresh air to see an article on Islam that isn't full of weasel words, and doesn't preface every black mark on Islam with justification or finger pointing at other groups. Arrow740 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

dispute

The {{totallydisputed}} tag is displayed at the beginning of this article. What is being disputed?--Sefringle 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Edits_by_Bless_sins for the latest dispute, not to mention other unresolved disputes in other sections.Bless sins 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The main discussion can be found on the Antisemitism talk page actually. --Aminz 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of questions:

Intro says "and whether it is more or less common than amongst people of other religions" but I cannot find the discussion about this in the main text. Equally I wonder whether we should include whether Islam is more "anti" toward Judaism than toward any other religion? --BozMo talk 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro is completely misleading. Sometime ago there was a section on Muslim denunciation of antiSemitism. That was removed because it was irrelevent. The purpose of this article is to show that Islam is antiSemitic.Bless sins 13:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of the worst articles on wikipedia. Just compare this article with some academic article on Islam and Antisemitism. For example, Encyclopedia of Religion, in the anti-semitism article states the following about Islam:

"The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam.

In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness: it was projected as the sole Western effort at recolonization within Islamic sphere. This perception has triggered intese antipathy for Zionism and its Jewish supporters, often viewed as indistinguishable, and has resulted in the revival of harshly negative imagery spawned in the altogether different sphere of medieval Christendom. Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience. Once again, these themes have proven flexible, readily transferable from milieu to milieu.

See how it is different. The authors of this article are Robert Chazan, Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University and Alan Davies [31].

Here are some other academic sources on Islam and Antisemitism [32].

The worst thing is that the authors of this article don't allow others to add any disputed tag to this article showing its unneutrality. --Aminz 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The vague quote above in no way negates the material already present in the article. That in the Middle Ages Jews were treated better under the Muslim than under the Christian rule may be true, but such comparison has no encyclopedic value. Other arguments of yours were discussed and found wanting on Talk:Antisemitism. Beit Or 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

-- simply like that this is a propaganda ....Read about how good were Jewish people treated in Al-landaus, Baghdad, and Cairo during the Abbasid & Am awed period.86.31.124.201 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New Edits

Beit Or, please state your objections. The diff in question is [33]. --Aminz 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to do the edit. So, it's up to you to defend your changes. In addition, whenever you want to do a major edit to a controversial article, please always discuss your suggestions first and edit only after gaining consensus. Beit Or 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you never did so when you were rewriting the whole article. Burdern of proof?? The sentences are all sourced.

Starting from the beginning: what was the problem with

1. "The Qur'anic image of Jews, like other Qur'anic themes, is far from uniform. For example, they are both recognized as true believers and rejected as infidels. Uri Rubbin views the qur'anic attitude towards Jews as ambivalent. ^[2]" This is providing a general description of the image of Jews in the Qur'an.

2. Why did you remove the Meccan-Medinian division?

3. Why this section is relevant to this article at all. The Qur'an has nothing to do with Antisemitism. Is it there to give this impression to the reader?

4. Why did you remove "Leon Poliakov states that the Qur'an contains attacks on Jews from theological standpoint for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God." It is attributed to Leon and he does say "from theological standpoint".

5. Why did you remove "Uri Rubbin states that the Qur'an engaged mainly in dealing with the sinners among the Jews and followed the New Testament model of attacking on them. ^[2]" who gives another POV on the attackes.

6. Why did you remove "In the latest period of Muhammad's life in Mecca, according to Stillman, Muhammad "became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion" and adopted a more negative attitude towards Jews.^[3]"

--Aminz 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, there appears to be at least some valid material in Aminz' latest addition. I can understand why, after all that's transpired, their might be a tendency to revert first and ask questions later where Aminz is concerned. However, it's possible that Aminz has learned something from the RfC, I've seen other reasonable edits from him recently, and ~~I'm certainly not reading the radioactive level of POV to which I'd become accustomed.~~ Perhaps there is some reason why any or all of these additions should be modified or are outright unwarranted, but I think he's owed at least a discussion.Proabivouac 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Aminz, some modified version of this is fine to include, but the way you've used it to displace the earlier introduction is unacceptable, leading me to strike out my remark above.

2) I'd guess due to suspicion (warranted or not) that it was being used as an excuse to move negative material downward.

3) This section documents exactly what the Qur'an has to do with Antisemitism.

4) This Poliakov sentence looks fine to me.

5) This sentence is completely ridiculous. Jesus' was a Jew who criticized other Jews; Muhammad criticized the Jews.

6) This Stillman reference seems potentially promising, but we need to be clearer about what Stillman is saying. Can you share the passage with us?Proabivouac 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, why this article should start with a section on "Jewish people in the Qur'an" and "Jewish people in the Muslim tradition". These have nothing to do with Antisemitism. The Yahud article in EoI is about Yahud. Lewis in his *book* discusses this. That's a book. But in all scholarly articles on this topic, such a section doesn't appear. The only article that gives a little bit details (and in passing) is the one in Judica Encyclopedia. --Aminz 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's describing anti-Semitism in the Qur'an. To what passage(s) do you object?

What about the Stillman passage? I'd like to clear up that language, because it sound like a potentially significant point.Proabivouac 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to the very existence of this section. Please see the Yahud article. Most of what is quoted here is not in the context of antisemitism at all.

Also, "and the Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise." is an unreferenced sentence. The first part is not informative at all and the second part takes a position on the validity of the fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an which is POV. --Aminz 09:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is simply your opinion that the Qur'an has nothing to do with antisemitism. Personal views of individual editors are irrelevant. The net effect of the approach you suggest is that when another Muslim cleric calls Jews "sons of apes and pigs", the reader will be left unaware that the epithet comes from the Qur'an. Beit Or 10:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Personal views of individual editors are irrelevant." true, so please show me an scholarly article on antisemitism which goes to such a detail and please do not add unsourced material. The best place to address those epithet stuff might be modern antisemitism. Also, please address the points I raised above. All the quotes taken from Yahud article are not in the context of antisemitism. --Aminz 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. I have never added anything unsourced. Your points were nicely addressed by Proabivouac. I can only add that Poliakov's sentence is already in the article and has been ther for a long time, so your claim that I have removed it is baseless. The difference in the attitude towards Jews between Meccan and Medinan period is acknowledged in the article. The section on Jews in the Qur'an is relatively short, creating more subsections is unnecessary. Beit Or 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My complain is that why do we have big sections on "Jews in the Qur'an" and "Jews in the hadith and biographies of Muhammad"? Can you please show me an scholarly article on Antisemitism which goes into this detail. You are using Yahud article for this section but that article is on Yahud. Only last sections of that article may be relevant to antisemitism. The rest is about Jews in Islam, not antisemitism. These material are irrelevant to this article. --Aminz 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, that "from theological perspective" is what the source says and seems to me to say that Muhammad criticized them because he thought they should do so according to their scripture. Without that, one might think Muhammad got angry at them and attacked them on other grounds. --Aminz 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"From theological perspective" adds nothing to the article. The sentence makes it very clear why the Qur'an attacks the Jews. Beit Or 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, it is clear that Muhammad was not only a prophet (in a religious sense), but also a political/social/military leader. Unless, you aruge that Aminz is misrepresenting the source, the sentence would benefit from such an addition.Bless sins 18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Further the source explains further that Muhammad used the bible in the same way as Christian theologians do. These are all authors POV and should be attributed to the author rather than stated as a fact. --Aminz 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to #5 in statement made by Proabivouac on 04:16, 2 February 2007, "This sentence is completely ridiculous. Jesus' was a Jew who criticized other Jews; Muhammad criticized the Jews. " Jesus was only a Jew in the sense that he was born into an Israelite family. Muhammad doesn't criticize the Jewish race or ethnic group, rather the Jews who converted to Islam are praised by the Quran. Muhammad criticizes the Jews on thier actions and beliefs, the same way Jesus criticizes Jews.Bless sins 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Response #5 looks ... --Aminz 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac hit the nail on the head. There is an unbridgeable gap between criticizing Jews for not observing the commandments of Judaism and attacking Jews for observing them. Beit Or 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If Proabivouac was an scholar, I would have accepted his ridicule of Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. --Aminz 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, Jesus didn't ask Jews to convert to anything, or to accept any new revealed scripture. He never repudiated Judaism, and, as a student of the Torah, grounded much of his discussion therein. Though he did argue for broader interpretations of portions of it against others, he never alleged that it had been corrupted or needed to be fixed, much less replaced. Though there were (and are today) a great many Jews whose only Jewishness was "in the sense that they were born into Israelite families," (i.e., were Jews) Jesus was certainly not one of them.Proabivouac 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree Proabivouac. There are two types of Tahrif(deviation, corruption): (1) tahrıf al-lafz, which refers to actual textual corruption of a revealed book by its receivers; and (2) tahrıf al-mana, which rather refers to the misinterpretation of a text.

Jesus did stress on Tahrıf al-mana. Regarding the Tahrif al-lafz, Watt and Acad write that in the qur’anic context, the relevant verses are principally an ambiguous accusation raised against the Jews (see Q. 2_75, 4_46, 5_13, 5_41). One should not, therefore, too quickly conclude that these verses were automatically understood in the sense of textual corruption of the whole Bible. The majority of early Muslim scholars believed it was just distortion in interpretation of the Bible, though Tahrif-al-lafz was well known from the beginning. Tabari explained Tahrif as the Jews “made the lawful forbidden and the forbidden lawful, and took the truth as falsehood and the falsehood as truth”. The accusation of forgery was a widespread polemical motif, already in pre-Islamic times used by pagan, Samaritan and Christian authors to discredit their opponents and Scriptures. --Aminz 01:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: my edit on 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) and others has not been addressed. --Aminz 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead section needs a rewrite

I have tagged the article for this. I haven't been involved with the article and wouldn't know how best to word the lead myself, but it needs a sentence with the title phrase, or perhaps just the title words, in bold, ideally starting "Islam and antisemitism is...". WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. Thanks. Itsmejudith 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerber

Who exactly is Gerber? What exactly is his full name and what are his qualifications?--Sefringle 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerber, Jane S. (1986). "Anti-Semitism and the Muslim World". In History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism, ed. David Berger. Jewish Publications Society. ISBN 0-8276-0267-7

I know nothing about the Jewish Publications Society. Are they a notable publisher? If so, do they screen authors or books? If they do not in a reliable way as academic publishers do/should then we may have to look more into the author to see if it's really a notable book. gren グレン 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks.--Sefringle 06:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jane Gerber is professor of Jewish history specializing in Sephardic/Jewish Studies (Spain and the Islamic World) at the City University of New York.[34] Jewish Publication Society is, of course, a notable and reliable publisher. Beit Or 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Random House is a notable and reliable publisher as well--I kind of meant in the academic sense. In any case, I'm not so worried that we use her as much as how we use her. "Cowardice, greed, and chicanery are but a few of the characteristics that the Qur'an ascribes to the Jews." isn't exactly a proper way to present a scholar's work. gren グレン 07:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why. I'm further uncertain what your Random House analogy was meant to demonstrate. Beit Or 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is on antisemitism, not the conception of Jews in the Qur'an. Further, as the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an points out the Quranic view of Jews is far from uniform. They are both recongnized as true believers and rejected as infidels. In the "Jews as sinners" section it writes that the Qur'an mainly dealt with the sinners among Jews. It is important to note who are addressed in those verses. --Aminz 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An important publishing house doesn't necessarily publish important scholarly books. It seems that the Jewish Publication Society publishes to provide Jews with books on their heritage--not to be an academic publisher. The book could be scholarly important but its publisher does not make it so (unlike an OUP publication which is considered at least entry-level scholarly).

The reason that sentence is problematic is because it presents what the author says as uncontested when it's not. Even an important scholar making an argument doesn't make their point true--it just makes it notable. It should not be recorded as fact but as an explanation from that author and other authors that agree. Also, "are but a few" is problematic because it's not mentioning any facts but it is say "this is only the tip of the iceberg". It gives the impression (without any explanation) that this is a constant in the book. If it is the case that they are 'but a few' then it should be better explained and not left to the reader's imagination. gren グレン 09:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning regarding the publisher is problematic. JPS publishes a mix of books, both scholarly and not. The decision to include material is always based on the consideration of all relevant facts, including the publisher, the author, and whether the author presents a notable opinion. Unless you want to argue that the book is not citable because it was published by JPS, I suggest putting the matter to rest.

If you believe that Gerber does not provide sufficient evidence in favor of the existence of the underwater part of the iceberg, then you should read the rest of the section: it's all there. Beit Or 10:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or please answer the following question (I would really appreciate it): what is that makes Gerber a scholar on the Quran, and its interpretation as according to the various schools of thoughts? Bless sins 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The point here is Gerber is a scholar on antisemitism. I think that makes him worthy of inclusion in this article. He may not be scholarly enough to discuss other quran-related issues, but part of antisemitism studies is the motive, and in the case of Islam, it is the quran.--Sefringle 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure he/she may write on anti-Semitism, and I won't dispute it. But he/she can't put his opinions on the Quran as fact. Just because he/she says the Quran is xyz, we can't accept that as fact because he/she is not an authority on the Quran. What we can do is say that "Gerber alleges..."Bless sins 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If not the quran, as Gerber suggests, what do you suppose is the motive for islamic antisemitism? Anti-zionism, which should be a recognized form of antisemitism? And what about pre-islamic antisemitism? Gerber is an authority on the quran in regards to antisemitism only, since Gerber is a scholar in antisemitism. As far as this article is concerned, that is what matters.--Sefringle 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There could be many motives for alleged "Islamic" antiSemitism (eg. racial, spread of european ideas through colonization). No Gerber is not an authority on the Quran, period. He/she can allege all he/she likes, but we can't state Gerber's unscholarly (as Gerber as little education in the Quran) opinions as fact in wikipedia.Bless sins 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that the Qur'an contain antisemitic texts. That's not true. If I get a hold of Gerber's book everything will be solved. --Aminz 06:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess the exact quote probably would be important to know to make a final decision on whether it is sourced and thus reliable or WP:OR.--Sefringle 06:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Sorry to be thick, but I really can't see that the removal of a series of links is vandalism. In my book vandalism is blanking a whole page with "nah nah nah nah nah poo-poo". And then we still assume good faith and inform the editor kindly that their "test" has been reverted. Articles don't have to have external links at all, so it is not seriously damaging the encyclopedia to remove them. And in this case, all the links are to articles and websites making strong political points. Take for example one sourced to Haaretz. No problem with Haaretz as a reliable source, however the link is not to news but an op-ed piece. How were these links chosen and why? Sure, it is a point that needs to be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Itsmejudith 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of another word to describe wholesale removal of all external links without saying even a word on talk, let alone getting consensus for the removal. You've been on Wikipedia for sufficiently long to assume you're not testing. Some of the existing links are not good, but others are pretty decent, including an article by a no lesser authority than Martin Kramer. Beit Or 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Edit-warring" as a word to describe what's happening? Oh, and I was mistaken on the Haaretz, it's an interview with Tariq Ramadan. The only point I would make about that, the Kramer etc., is if they are worth referring to at all they are worth citing in the article, not as external links. Many contentious articles don't have external links. They are not like an article on a town, where the town's own website does duty as main source and external link. Or an article on a company. Itsmejudith 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, Itsmejudith. Haaretz is a bad source on Islam and antisemitism unless it publishes an interview with Tariq Ramadan. This says volumes about your argumentation: you exclude or defend sources based on their real or suspected POV, not on reliability. Beit Or 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but Beit Or, I would really appreciate it if you could respond to my question above (here)Bless sins 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All your questions were answered a long time ago. Please stop pestering. Beit Or 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Beit Or, but you WILL have to either explain, or point to when my questions "were answered". Bless sins 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. All the links can go as far as I'm concerned, the Ramadan interview with the others. Any that editors consider to contain notable facts or viewpoints should be cited in the article. Itsmejudith 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

relevance tag placed under "jews in the qur'an"

Could somebody explain why this tag is placed here.--Sefringle 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not directly relevant to antisemitism. Please show me one scholarly article on antisemitism which discusses this in this much detail. Many parts of section is based on Yahud article in Encyclopedia of Islam which is talking about Yahud. --Aminz 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well as Beit Or mentioned already under Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Gerber. Jane Gerber already mentioned these verses are related to Islam and antisemitism. Personally I can't think of anything more relevant to the topic, as that would tell us if Islam truly is an antisemitic religion or not. If that isn't convincing enough, there is also the quote in the Encyclopedia Judaica (See Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Encyclopedia Judaica).--Sefringle 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica mentions this in passing. Have you seen that article?

Of course if someone writes a *book* on antisemitism, he will touch this in detail but what does Gerber exactly says? Is he writing about antisemitism? The quotes from Yahud article are not in the context of antisemitism at all. --Aminz 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His book is about antisemitism. Of corse he is writing about antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am talking about WP:Due weight. It has some relevance of course. But in any (couple of page) article written on Antisemitism, you can not find such a section like this. I haven't seen at least, maybe you can help me. --Aminz 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That settles the issue about relevance, so that is the incorrect template. If you wish to post a more relevant template, feel free to do so.--Sefringle 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently it is sourced to Gurber's book on p.78.--Sefringle 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, it is not the exact quote. The exact quote is this:

From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God. In certain aspects, Muhammad utilized the Bible in a manner similar to that of the Christian theologians, since he found in it the announcement of his own coming, but he also used the New Testament in the same way. As a result, Jews and Christians, although "infidels," are both regarded by the Koran as "Peoples of the Book," possessing Scriptures.

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING ELSE ON THE QURAN!!!. This is the POV of Leon and should be attributed to him. --Aminz 06:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"as that would tell us if Islam truly is an antisemitic religion or not." I seriously think you miss the point of NPOV and how to write an encyclopedia. That is not the point of this article. This article is not to be used to quote the Qur'an in an effort to support the theory that the Qur'an is anti-Semitic. The Qur'an should only be quoted if a specific verse was mentioned by a scholar. Otherwise it is is the editor merely trying to use a verse to prove that the Qur'an either is or isn't anti-Semitic. For instance, who has decided that 2:61 is relevant? If we cite the Qur'an it should be because a notable source pointed us to a specific verse. If Bernard Lewis says verse 2:61 is important to understanding how Muslims view the Jews then we can quote that verse... however, we cannot mention it out of the blue without some other source having used it because that would be original research. gren グレン 07:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just stating my opinion on the issue of the {{relevance}} tag being posted in this section. Guess I didn't make that clear.--Sefringle 06:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead suggestion

Since no other suggestions for sorting the lead have been forthcoming, may I suggest the following:

The question of whether there is antisemitism in Islam or among Muslims has been discussed in relation to various aspects of Islamic tradition and the practice of Muslims, including:
the references to Jews and Judaism in the Qur'an and sunna;

the history of early Islam and the relationship of Muhammad to Arab tribes that practised forms of Judaism;

the way that Jewish minorities were treated in medieval Islamic states; and

attitudes and practices of modern Muslims and governments of countries with Muslim majorities.

NB that I'm only putting this forward to get a discussion going. I don't think it's a particularly good lead. It'll probably please no-one but it does make a start on reflecting the current contents of the article. Itsmejudith 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to rewrite the lead is appreciated, but it still doesn't meet with WP:LEAD as it shouldn't say "is the subject of this article". Itsmejudith 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Didn't like that myself ... just a first effort ... feel free to improve upon it. Tx. --Epeefleche 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or's edits

Re this diff [35], as explained above it should be sourced to the author and the type of attack should be specified and further should be put into its context. --Aminz 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

removial of quote

"and the Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise."

I took this out because it tries to say that Islamic fundamentalism are true followers of the Qur'an. Any group of Muslims believe they are following what the Qur'an really says, so that's POV and unreferenced. The sentence is also not adding any information to the article. We already know that the Qur'an is the holy book of Muslims. --Aminz 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may dislike this sentence, but it's both sourced and important. Beit Or 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence is that it presents "The Qur'an contains attacks on Jews for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God" as a fact. I there are important views that disagree--and mostly with the inflammatory language of "attacks on the Jews". No one will deny that there are important theological differences, however calling it attacks on the anti-Semitism page furthers linking the Qur'an with anti-Semitism when I think many Muslims and scholars would argue that they are theological differences that are far and away from anti-Semitism. I don't like Aminz's wording very much either but I disagree that saying it's sourced solves the problem. I hope the brief explanation helps and I'm sorry for my first throw-away response. gren グレン 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe alternative sources can be found, but what I have at the moment only supports the current wording. Compare, for example, "...the holy writings of Islam contained many anti-Jewish declarations..." (Laqueur p. 192) or "The Koran is laced with anti-Jewish pronouncements." (Gerber p. 78). Beit Or 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, what scholarship does Lacquer have to comment on "Koran"?? One In fact the study of its interpretation is known as tafsir. Please cite sources that are actually RS in the field of the Quran.Bless sins 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to get these books and see what they really say. In any case, every sentence must be attributed to the authors. No contest about that. From theological perspective must be added to that sentence and the context of it must be specified as I did. We don't want to say some vague sentence like "The Qur'an attacked Jews" and leave it alone to reader's imagination. --Aminz 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Bless sins edit [36]. Aside from these, I can easily find academic sources which say some positive things about the Qur'an and Jews. That's not hard. But the point is that these should be all in the context of antisemitism. The Judica Encyclopedia quote is at least taken from Antisemitism article. I need to check others as well. Most of the edits from Yahud article, EOI should be deleted because they are not in the context of antisemitism. --Aminz 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the above comment that one "needs to be a scholar of the Quran to interpret it and comment on it," I have a feeling that it is being used in an overbroad manner here. That being said, here is a scholar of the Qu'ran who has much to say on this issue ... he is an Imam, a professor of Islam, and studied in Saudi Arabia and Islam ... this one interview with him will give you a flavor for his thinking ... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13587 ... those that believe that we need an Islamic professor of religion to support views before they might be included here might turn to some of his statements and writings. --Epeefleche 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian schoolbooks

If there are (relevent) scholars who say something, it would possibly merit inclusion into the article. But since when do school books represent Muslim beliefs? Unless this literature circulates the "department of religion" at Saudi universities, or other religious institutions, it says nothing about Islam and Muslims.

In addition, it needs to be justified that the source actually says that this curriculum is antiSemitic because such and such.Bless sins 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, you must show how the Hezbollah quote, as well as Saudi textbooks, are representative of the belief of the Muslim World. If they aren't, then they must be given extremely little space, considering the extremly little people (out of 1.2 billion Muslims) they represent.Bless sins 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant scholars refer to these schoolbooks and teachings. That is reflected I believe in the article.

Furthermore, the Basic Law of Government of the Saudi Kingdom adopted in 1992 declared that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a) [1].

Also, these are clearly comments as to the Koran. They are not, in contrast, statements as to secular policy.

The quotes, brought together, support the comments now added to the article by a Professor of Islam that Moslems are taught anti-semitic interpretations of the Qu'ran.

As to your other points, please point us to specific Wiki policy that supports your notions that: 1) the source must identify the comment as anti-semitic -- rather than "res ipsa loquitur"; 2) quotes by Palestineans (because they are small in number - a comment I view as belittling, to be quite honest ... they may be too small in number to be important to you, but if you read Arabic or Western press I believe you will see that others have a different view), Hezbollah, or Saudi government-approved textbooks that invoke the Qu'ran are not representative enough to appear hear. Surely, you do not think that all should appropriately be set forth here is a statistically significant sampling of the entire Moslem world, or statements by Imams or professors of Islam. If you do, please point to the Wiki policy that supports that sentiment. Tx. --Epeefleche 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What is taught in Saudi secular schools has nothing to do with Islam or Muslim belief. Paksitan, has passed similar laws to Saudi Arabia stating that Qur'an is the constitution of the country, yet it has legalized alcohol. Are you then going to say that Islam allows alcohol? Remember this aricle is about Islam not Saudi schools.Bless sins 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my above comments, most of which you have not responded to.

In addition, responding to your lone comment, the references in the article to what is being taught in Saudi schools relates precisely to Islam. It is not as though the Kingdom is advancing a secular view. The Kingdom is specifically advancing an interpretation of the Qu'ran. An interpretation of the Qu'ran, communicated to the children of the country by a country that is the seat of Islam and which has adopted Islamic law as its governing law, is not only appropriate for inclusion, it is I would suggest far more notable than a lone comment by a scholar or imam might be, hidden away in some dusty book, perhaps read by no one. Again, I see no Wiki support for your approach either. --Epeefleche 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is not "seat of Islam". Infact the writers of the textbook are not even Islamic scholars (if u disagree, please prove it otherwise). What an ordinary (wo)man who happens to be a Muslim writes, has no bearing on Muslim belief. I suggest you look at WP:RS. It is clear from wiki policy that a three year old girl who says "Jews are apes and pigs is written in the Koran" is not a relaible source.Bless sins 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my argument. In order for you to include something in this article it must be,

1. An allegation of antiSemitism [per relevency].

2. An allegation against Islam, Quran, or Muslims in general [per relevency].

3. The one making the allegation must be a reliable source in area they are making the allegation[37].

4. Due weight should be given to the allegation and the subject concerned[38].

Bless sins 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that this is a reasonable basis for evauating whether something should be included or excluded?Bless sins 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Busy right now, and wish to provide you with a considered response, but will be back to you. --Epeefleche 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts.

You still have not responded to most of my above comments. Responding to your above suggestion, though, my thoughts are as follows.

1 & 2. I think that it suffices for something to be patently anti-semitic. I do not see any need in such circumstances for there to be an allegation of antisemitism. Massacres, comments that Jews are pigs or apes, etc. speak for themselves. If you have a different view, let me know where in Wiki policy it comes from.

3. You might want to take a look at Wiki policy vis-a-vis your thoughts on reliable sources. In any event, I do not think that we have to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams. I think it quite appropriate of course to quote those people. But I think it quite proper for there to be references here to statements made by Hamas, Egyptian and Saudi authorities, and -- because it is broadcast by the Saudi government to Moslems worldwide -- yes, a 3-year-old girl, as standing for the proposition that an on-its-face antisemitic interpretation of the Qu'ran has been delivered by the authorities and those in power in the Arab world to the Moslem population, who have at times learned this from a very early age.

4. I am not sure that I follow this last point. --Epeefleche 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Per WP:OR, you can't declare some specific act to be antiSemitism, just as I can't declare something to be Islamophobia. And yes, each act must be judged independently, not all murders of Jews would be considered antiSemitism. Per wp:or provide your sources.

2.It has to talk about Islam, or Muslims in general. That should be obvious as the page is called "Islam and antiSmeitism". Also, it has to be notable enough to be included. For example, some XYZ Muslim down my street does NOT qualify as notable, unless there many reliable sources that report on him.

3. "...to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams." I didn't sya that. But we can't get scholars who no expertise on Islam to comment. They just don't know enough about the religion to comment on it. Also, note I have never seen a 3 year old scholar. Also, it is rare to find a 3-year old notable enough to have/his beliefs published, and regarded as representative of 1.2 billion people worldwide. Again, per WP:OR, if you can find a source that suggets that this unnamed 3 year old is representative of Muslims, then you can include her. But its up to a scholar to make that call, not you or I.

4. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, then why not just look at [39]? Bascially it means you can't overblow the view of a minority group (like Hamas, Hezbollah), in an article talking about mainstream people (i.e. Muslims).Bless sins 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim of minority view is risible because whether a majority or minority view, it still belongs in the article, as long as it antisemitism. Beit Or 13:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But you can't overblow the minority view, and make it seem like most Muslims share the views of Hamas etc., per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.Bless sins 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The article does not at the moment discuss the prevalence of antisemitic views among Muslims. Beit Or 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Although this is rare, I absolutely agree with you. We need to bring more mainstream perspectives and limit the extremist ones. I mean look at Hezbolllah, they are not even dominant in Lebanon (as didn't win the majority of votes), how can they be representative of the Muslims?Bless sins 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerber II

A review of the section of the book written by Gerber says:

But Jane Gerber, too, can point out that Mubammad’s attitude may largely reflect patterns of client relationships between desert tribes. And modern Arab anti-Semitism, she adds, draws heavily on the input of Christian Arabs so prominent in Arab nationalist movements. Is there perhaps some relationship between this anti-Semitism and a Christian Arab sense of incomplete social integration in the Arab world?

So, one of us should read Gerber for checking the factual accuracy of all statements in this article. --Aminz 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jews in the Qur'an/ Jews in the hadith and biographies of Muhammad

If these are written using sources which are not talking about antisemitism, they should be moved to their own articles. --Aminz 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the sections on "Hamas", "Saudi Arabia" and "Egpyt" should go under a section in Modern times. I can also see undue weight given to one or two scholars or organizations. --Aminz 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As to your second point, I can see arguments for either approach, and don't care myself which one is used.

As to your first, I am not sure what you are referring to.

--Epeefleche 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche, all the articles on antisemitism that I've seen touch the issue of Qur'an and Antisemitism in passing. This article has such a stress on the Qur'an on the Jews as if it is a dominant academic POV that the Qur'an contains anti-semitic statements. Many passages taken from sources in this article doesn't talk about antisemitism but rather Jews in general(like EoI article on Yahud). It is original research to draw connection between them and antisemitism. --Aminz 08:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is clearly relevant and belongs in this article. I am going to restore it.--Sefringle 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, can you show me an academic article on Antisemitism which goes into this detail. Also, you can not use Yahud article in EoI since it is not writing about antisemitism. --Aminz 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, why Proa removed that bit about Christian theologians? He said it is not relevant but it is more relevant than what is already presentend in the article. --Aminz 07:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To make my point, I will quote WP:NOT#PAPER. It says:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

There is a feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.

This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable.

To compare this with other encyclopedias is not practical. World Book Encyclopedia has all of 3 paragraphs on antisemitism as a whole, both Christian and Muslim, and doesn't have individual encyclopedia article on Islam and antisemitism. Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't even have an antisemitism article. The part in EoI can be removed, but the rest of it should stay, since it is on the topic of antisemitism, and is sourced to scholars on antisemitsim.--Sefringle 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, On each article, we should not give undue weight to different sections. This article is not on "Quran and the Jews". The article touches the real issue only near the end. On the contrary it should directly go to the topic. In Criticism of the Qur'an we didn't start the sections with a long introduction on topics. They can go to other articles. --Aminz 08:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article has a long section on what a mofti of Suadi Arabia said. That can be considered undue weight. I doubt that can be a good representative of what Muslims think. True, admittedly many antisemitic themes have been Islamized today. Some passages from Qur'an are given antisemitic interpretations but that's a very recent phenomenon. --Aminz 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these quotes from Leon Poliakov, Walter Laqueur, and Jane Gerber are post Holocost or durig that time period, so I can't agree that it is a recent phenomenon. Gurber was in 1986, the others are more recent. No, this article isn't on the quran and jews as a whole, but it is on antisemitism. If the quran calls for antisemitic acts, as these scholars suggest, it is relevant. What Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais is mentioned twice, so it could be condenced. I agree there. Second, we have shortened the introduction down to about 1 paragraph. I disagree that only the end is relevant. The whole article discusses antisemitsim. Muslim antisemitsim covers more than just anti-zionism. There was plenty of antisemitism in the muslim world before zionism. The beginning and middle do a good job summarizing that era. (well it needs a little work, but most of it can be fixed pretty easily). --Sefringle 08:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an doesn't call for anything, the commentators do. The Qur'an doesn't talk, the commentators make it talk. So, we should not give undue weight to one commentator. According to many scholars, Antisemitism wasn't among Muslims in classical times because there was no particular discriminative persecution against the Jews. --Aminz 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I have to agree with Sefringle on this one. I cannot find any Wiki policy that supports your notion that it is appropriate to site article that reference Islamic antisemitism

only if Islamic antisemitism is the main focus of the article.

Secondly, all of the above references are of course "talking about antisemitism," as you put it. That is clear on its face. So it is not as though they are not relevant.

Thirdly, your definition of "original research" is not the common one.

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Please note that that list does not suggest, as you have, that it constitutes original research if one stiches together facts as has been done here.

See [40] --Epeefleche 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.--one last point. You write: "The Qur'an doesn't call for anything, the commentators do. The Qur'an doesn't talk, the commentators make it talk. ... According to many scholars, Antisemitism wasn't among Muslims in classical times because there was no particular discriminative persecution against the Jews." That seems to me to be somewhat at odds with the quotations from the Qu'ran that have been presented (and, at times, deleted) in the article. I guess that it makes the point as to why it is important to keep those direct quotations in the article, as well as the interpretations of it that the masses hear, whether from mufti or from Saudi TV broadcast to Moslems around the world.--Epeefleche 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping quotations is one thing, but saying "the Quran says...", or "the Quran conatins attacks..." is quite another. Only a commentator in his tafsir can make that call. Also, that comentator has to be notable enough to represent a sizeable muslim pop. For example take Ibn Kathir, very infleuntial figure. OR for modern times take Maududi, another very ntoable figure. Note: Khomeni is also very, very notable, but amongst Shi'ite Muslims only. So know who you are talking about.Bless sins 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis in WIkipedia policies for your exclusion of sources on the basis of religion of the authors. Beit Or 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never made such a claim. Don't put words in my mouth. Please clearly state my words where I suggest "exclusion on the basis of religion".Bless sins 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot exclude scholars because they are not Muslims, as you want to do when arguing that only a Muslim has the right to comment on what the Qur'an says. You cannot silence people; non-Muslim scholars will keep researching the Qur'an whether you want it or not. Beit Or 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're evading my basic question: when and where did I say that "only a Muslim has the right to comment on what the Qur'an says". Please stop making false accusation against me.Bless sins 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You said that "Only a commentator in his tafsir can make that call." Sorry, no. Seculars scholars can too make up their minds on what the Qur'an says. In addition, in this case what the Qur'an says is pretty self-evident. Now, if you have read a single tafsir, you will surely know that when quoting the Qur'an, commentators do not say "the Qur'an says", but rather "Allah said". Beit Or 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tafsir by definition is "Qur'anic exegesis or commentary". The definition does not specify wether it has to be written by a Muslim. Again, I maintain that I don't exclude on the basis of religion. You have yet to show that.Bless sins 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

By definition, a tafsir is a Muslim commentary on the Qur'an. Beit Or 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Go to tafsir to verify yourself. Tafsir doens't require being Muslim (there's a billion of those), but rahter schoalrship in its highest form.Bless sins 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll move off the topic of accustations. Although there are other scholarly works on the Quran, a tafsir is a far more scholarly work. For example, Montogmery Watt has prduced a "Companion to the Quran" with his commentary on it. He is not a Muslim. However, a tafsir goes into detail considering events of Muhammad's life, as well as 7th century Arabic, and then interprets the verse properly. The tafsir is also complete, meaning it consistently outputs a holistic interpretation of the Quran.Bless sins 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion it outputs a holistic interpritation. It is also bias in many ways. But this is an old discussion we've been having on this talk pages at least three times now. Lets not get into it again.--Sefringle 05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, "All editors and all sources have biases". A western source presents the way West sees things, while a scholar hailing from Al-Azhar, will present the way the Middle East sees things. In addition, tafsirs have influenced Muslim thinking far more than non-tafsir literature have. Thus they actually represent the belief of mainstrean Muslims. (I am not saying that we shouldn't include non-tafsirs, only that tafsir are far better sources).Bless sins 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

^ Quoted in Cohen (1995) p.xvii
^ ^a ^b "Jews and Judaism", Encyclopedia of the Qur'an
^ Cite error: The named reference Yahud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Cohen-1] Quoted in Cohen (1995) p.xvii

[EoQ-2] "Jews and Judaism", Encyclopedia of the Qur'an

[Yahud-3] Cite error: The named reference Yahud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

TOO Biased and misleading article!

Too simplistic

Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews

From anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_and_Islam

RK

Islam or muslims?

Abraham

Other Side

Comparison with Christian anti-semitism

[citation needed] added

"Islamic" claims that certain Jews had been transformed into lowly animals

A verse

An apology from a Muslim to Jewish Editors

Bernard Lewis "Quote"

"Historic Muslim Persecution of Jews" needs changes

Lewis quote

Inappropriate removal of content

Historic Muslim respect for the Jews

References to Jews

Superfluous Qur'an verses

Original Research

POV disputes, Original Research

"Islam claims"

Tags

Revert solicitation

Why does this article exist?

Protected

Dhimmi + anti-Semitism?

Good article on The Koran and Anti-Semitism

Where in the Article do I put institutional anti-Semitism in the Muslim world?

Anti-semitism from Islamist groups in South Asia

Arabs are Semites too

I agree

Important quote needs to be mentioned

page move

There is nothing... and more

Preemptive comment

Encyclopedia of Islam

Copyvio links

Islamic scholars??

Tag

Encyclopedia Judaica

Edits by Bless sins

Good article

dispute

Couple of questions:

New Edits

Lead section needs a rewrite

Gerber

Vandalism?

relevance tag placed under "jews in the qur'an"

Lead suggestion

See also Islam and Judaism

Beit Or's edits

removial of quote

Saudi Arabian schoolbooks

Gerber II

Jews in the Qur'an/ Jews in the hadith and biographies of Muhammad