Talk:Timeline of antisemitism

897 - Charles the Simple

In 897 Charles the Simple was not yet in control of Narbonne, since he only ascended to the throne of West Francia in 898. At least the date must be in error. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 17:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The only references from a Google search to this claim seem to point back to this article. I would have expected this event to be recorded in the detailed Narbonne article in the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Narbonne". and it is not.

Please cite the source. patsw (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the dubious claims as unsourced. Since there are numerous appearances of this in Google searches of this claim as a consequence of this entry, please provide a reliable source which pre-dates Wikipedia references to it, should you be inclined to reenter it. This sort of claim is common for a WP:CIRC reference. patsw (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Jizya and practices against dhimmis

Text was removed (again) by User:PaddyMacConghaile referencing status of Dhimmi and imposition of jizya with the comment Jizya and practices against dhimmis are not targeted towards Jews specifically.

They are in themselves anti-semitic regardless of the presence of other groups likewise victimized by these practices. Jews were treated with intolerance, hostility, discrimination, and prejudice as a consequence of it. Is that disputed? patsw (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute that. When a Muslim woman is disallowed from masking herself in an ID photo for a civil document, and is forced to do so, is this islamophobia? No this is not directed towards Muslims, this is directed towards people wearing any form of a face covering. And likewise if the Jews that are subject to these policies were to convert to Islam, this would immediately cease to be antisemitism according to you, despite them still being "Jews"? If they had been any religion other than Muslim, they would still be targeted. This tells you that it isn't an act SPECIFICALLY targeted towards Jews, but dhimmis in general. If the Jews killed in the holocaust had been some other religion/race, there wouldn't be a 'Holocaust' as the term holocaust is also to describe the specific targeting of Jews, just like the term 'Anti-semitism'. What you are trying to do will make the word "Anti-semitism" lose it's meaning to the point of saying that even any murder or robbery that occured against a Jewish person is antisemitism, even if the perpetrator would have done it regardless of the Jewishness of his victim. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your analogy does not apply here: wearing a mask, removing it and then replacing it is not the equivalent of conversion from Judaism to Islam.

It does not diminish the antisemitism to have others treated at the same time with intolerance, hostility, discrimination, and prejudice. Imagine a locale composed of a majority of Muslims and minorities of Jews and Zoroastrians. The Muslims there impose the traditional Dhimmi status and jizya tax on them. That would be evidence of both antisemitism and anti-Zoroastriansism. Being "specific" doesn't come into the picture.

The granting of a privileged status to Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism, etc. in a locale to the detriment of Jews living there is antisemitism regardless of the presence or absence of other non-privileged groups impacted. patsw (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not about the PRESENCE, it is about the purpose and the intent. There is a very CLEAR difference for example between murder and killing in self-defense. They are not persecuted due to anti-zoroastrianism or anti-semitism, they are persecuted due to being part of a larger group. Why is the holocaust specifically the act of targeting Jews, why is it not an act of killing of ALL the "undesirables" in Nazi germany? Because they did not just kill Jews because they were a different religion, because we know Nazis did not care about religion nor did they care about any actual ethnic divisions. No, they were specifically targeting Jews, BECAUSE they are Jews. Not just targeting Jews because they were "untermensch" or because they were a different religion, but because they are Jews regardless of what they said or did they would have been targeted. I would have agreed with you if they had targeted only Jews, or if they had targeted Muslim Jews as well or made rhetoric specifically saying that they are doing this to Jews because they are Jews, but please do NOT belittle the holocaust and the pogroms and the farhud by inflating the definition of antisemitism and calling out "Antisemitism!" every time something happens to a Jew. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It indeed belittles the Holocaust, which is apparently an inconsequential 'blip' in the international history of anti-Semitism that's spanned thousands of years and forms. It's painfully ironic how conspiratorial the page as a whole seems, and I just hope there are Wikipedia pages this extensive for Islamophobia, anti-Christianity, anti-Catholicism, etc. Cgrnt1694 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome to write those articles. Zanahary (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Paddy, have you read sources on the history of Jews in the Muslim world? Anti-Jewish rhetoric, beliefs, and legislation abounded, with particular qualities distinctive to Jewish dhimmis. The Holocaust’s multiplicity works here: all "undesirables" were targeted, and the targeting of Jews came with particular anti-Jewish sentiment and practice that is relevant to the history of anti-semitism in Islam. Zanahary (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is the imposition of the Dhimmi status and jizya upon Jews antisemitism?

Is the imposition of the Dhimmi status and jizya upon Jews antisemitism? (earlier discussion on talk page) patsw (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment based on the prior discussion it looks enough throat-clearing has been done and it's time to use reliable sources. If the practice is spoken of as antisemitic by a reliable source then it probably belongs. And likewise if there is a contrary view from a different reliable source - directly stated and not using synthesis to come to a conclusion, then that may additionally be stated. Wizmut (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC. User:patsw, I didn't see any sources that back up the removed information. If you believe that dhimmi status and the imposition of jizya constitute antisemitism, please provide sources for that. A RfC would be needed only if this fails to resolve the dispute. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

From Dario Fernandez-Morera's Some Overlooked Realities of Jewish Life under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain

It is widely accepted that under Islam the Jewish community of Spain briefly enjoyed a “Golden Age.” However, it is far less widely understood that Muslim, Christian, and Jewish legal and historical sources indicate that favorable treatment violated medieval Islamic law and also that even under the best circumstances, Jews remained subject to the vicissitudes of their condition as dhimmis (“protected” non-Muslims). If there was brief good treatment, it was because of tactical needs of particular Muslim rulers, not legal considerations.
...
As the Maliki school of medieval Islamic law prescribed, Jews were forced to pay the Muslim rulers of al-Andalus the jizya, a yearly poll tax intended not only as the price of their being ahlu dhimma (people of “protection” or simply al dhimma or dhimmis), but also as a sign of their humiliation before Islam.

Rusi Jaspal's Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: Representation, Cognition and Everyday Talk

dhimmi status ... meant that they were tolerated and protected as an official minority provided that they accepted a subordinate and inferior status to Muslims (Lazarus-Yafeh, 1999; Poliakov, 1974).

Jesse Weinberg's The End of Eden: Anti-Semitism in Iraq, 1917, 1951

Anti-Judaism, a contempt for Judaism on religious grounds, evolved in Iraq from sentiments about ahl al-dhimma, non-Muslims under Islamic rule.
...
When Jews supervised Muslims or failed to act like dhimmīs (protected non-Muslims), attacks on Jews increased to ‘correct’ the hierarchy.
...
Successive rulers imposed laws to distinguish dhimmī as lower subjects. Jews could not bear arms, serve in war, ride saddled horses, or worship in public, and paid a poll tax, the jizya.
...
Protection of dhimmīs, rather than an innocent plot of heroism, self-flattery or an example of tolerance, was in fact a myth to perpetuate inequality and create an unequal society, in which Muslims subjugated non-Muslims and ruled them. Rules that imposed prohibitions to make Jews low – discriminatory taxes, sumptuary laws, prohibitions against leadership roles and relegation to demeaning jobs that were socially scorned – stemmed from the same tropes Muslim heroics derived from: Jews were weak, incapable and beneath Muslims. Anti-Judaism was not a normal prejudice, just as Stillman contends. The prejudice was preserved in hallowed texts, the inequality was considered sacrosanct, and the stereotypes and taboos continued long after the initial purpose, to convince believers of Islam, had ceased.
...
These distinctions conveyed dhimmī status – incorporated and low. Jews were expected to behave as dhimmīs...

I think these sources are establishing, and I will include a description of dhimma to the article if there is not further objection. Zanahary (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources you have cited here are talking about how it affected Jews, neglecting to talk about how the Christians also had to face the exact same thing. It is not talking about any specifically anti-semitic rhetoric but rather specifically anti-dhimmi rhetoric. Jews happened to be dhimmis, and for the record most of what I removed did not even include any sources. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these sources all specifically highlight anti-Judaism within the dhimma system. Hence, it is relevant to the timeline of antisemitism (see especially the source identifying Iraqi anti-Jewish sentiment having its roots in the dhimma) Zanahary (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading, none of those sources actually say that the imposition of dhimmī status is antisemitic. The first one doesn't mention antisemitism and simply says Jews remained subject to their condition as dhimmis (also obviously true of Christians). The second one has antisemitism in the title, but the quoted passage doesn't mention it. The third one says that anti-Judaism evolved from sentiments about dhmmi status, not that the latter was a form of anti-Judaism (let alone antisemitism). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Humbled

When the people who are "humbled" by Muslims are Christian, it is anti-Christian. When the people who are "humbled" by Muslims are Jews, it is antisemitic. When the people who are "humbled" by Muslims are Hindus, it is anti-Hundu. Is that disputed? patsw (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not disputed, but you are talking about them like every one of them is an isolated case when in reality it did not matter whether they were Jews or Christians or Hindus, they would all be treated the same. You are essentially saying that every time a Muslim slips on a banana peel, that banana peel is Islamophobic. Come on now. It is a false analogy. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)