Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

Balance tag

It is unclear why there is a balance tag in the 'quran says Jews are apes and pigs' section. I am going to remove it if I can't figure out why it is there.--Sefringle 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is there because there is an long section dedicated to the views of a modern Saudi scholar. The views of organizations like Hamas should be mentioned in one sentence. They are not notable in the 1400 history of Islam. --Aminz 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was almost thinking about tagging the Saudi Arabia section with {{quotefarm}}, but I'm not sure that is a problem. But unbalanced, I don't know. I don't think the current issue is a conflict of opinions.--Sefringle 05:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Balance of the article

In its current version, this article looks actually unbalanced. When I have seen the title, i.e. Islam and antisemitism, I would have thought that the article would not limit itself to speaking only about the anti-Semitic (or better said, anti-Jewish) aspect of the religion or about the anti-Jewish views of some of those who are Muslims. Because in its current feature, the article tends to demonstrate that Islam is antisemitic (in the meaning of anti-Jewish) by essence. I am however convinced that this is not the case and that there must surely be possible to find at least as much Islamic authors, commentators or scholars who condemn antisemitism. I am far from being a specialist of Islam, but I am convinced that among Wikipedia’s contributors one should easily find a lot of people who know Islam well enough to add references to ancient or new Muslim authors and scholars who condemn antisemitism. This would make a more balanced article. --Lebob-BE 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the allegation of antiSemitsm is very very recent, and no one has had the time to respond to it. Up to the second world war no one in the West dared to criticize Islam as antiSemitic, as they (the Westerners) were far more antiSemitic than Muslims. Much of the allegation of antiSemitsm also comes from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, another recent thing. Maududi criticizes Europe for being antiSemetic, and portrays Nazis as vicious, but he doesn't really tie a verse in the Quran with those views.Bless sins 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They have responded(they are censored). For example, the hatred of Jews among Muslims is only a modern phenomenon. Lebob-BE hit the nail on the head. The article has a purpose: To prove that Islam is essentially antisemitic. Why? Well, it is clear. This idea justifies the existence of the state of Israel among Arabs. Pretty simple! --Aminz 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apes and pigs

Can someone please show the reliable source that considers the statements made in the following sections to be representative of the Quran and an act of antiSemitism.

1.1.1 Hamas

1.1.2 Sicily

1.1.3 Egypt

Also, I'm removing the Saudi sermons for sake of avoiding redundancy.Bless sins 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a section on "modern times", summarize these put them there balancing it with the views of other modern Muslims. --Aminz 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for the section on Saudi Arabia. Citations must be found to demonstrate that this claim is based on the Quran, and that these claims are indeed examples of antiSemitsm per published and reliable source on antiSemitism.Bless sins 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The section in question links to reliable sources specifically mentioning antisemitism. A lot of original research defending Islam against the charge has been inserted there, we could delete that if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the "A lot of original research".Bless sins 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Muslim scholars differ as to what happened. Some suggest that the people were indeed transformed into animals. Others argue that the trangressors began to behave in the manner of animals.[17] For example, Sayyid Qutb argues that there was no transformation (physical or otherwise), rather the Quran only observes that the people began to act like animals (by their free will) when they forsaked God's laws (regarding Sabbath) and followed their physical desires.[18] He supports his argument by pointing to the fact that neither the Quran, nor the sayings of Muhammad, specify the type of transformation.[19] Muslim scholars generally agree that, in any case, the punishment was not meted on all inhabitants. Thus the Quran says: When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression. Qur'an 7:165 In the city there were inhabitants that violated Sabbath and those that didn't. The inhabitants of this Jewish settlement who were sincere to God were saved from the punishment and are considered with "honour."[20] - All of that is original research, none of the sources refer to Islam and antisemitism at all, it's just a lengthy explanation of what some editors think the verses are really referring to. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is sourced to reliable sources on Islam. Ofcourse it refers to Islam! (Actually, it refers to the Quran, which is part of Islam). In any case this presents a scholarly POV to verses that are accused of bieng antisemitic.Bless sins 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but none of the sources are about Islam and antisemitism. Since you are quite strict about insisting on no original research, I am astonished you defend this. Like you, I tried searching for "antisemitism" in the sources provided, but was unable to find it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you argued "section in question links to reliable sources specifically mentioning antisemitism".

The Hamas quote is sourced to "The Hamas monthly publication Falastin Al-Muslima (London), September 1996, series of articles by Ibrahim Al-'Ali, pp. 54-55.". Please point out where the literature in question specifically mentions "antisemitism". Also, please show the "reliable source" that connects this to the Quran.Bless sins 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the references. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the word "antisemitism" on your new reference by "Solnick, Aluma".Bless sins 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I tried seraching for the word "antisemitism" on the follwoing source, but came up with no results. can you point out the page where the word "antisemitism" is used. Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (pdf), Freedom House, May 2006, pp.24-25. Bless sins 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you prepared to remove the original research about the Qur'an, and whether the transformation was really physical, above? I want to make sure there are no double standards here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of certain Quranic verses sourced to scholars on the Quran can be removed when the allegation that certain verses of the Quran are antisemetic is removed. Bless sins 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The allegations are clearly that certain verses in the Qur'an are antisemitic, and they have been documented in a neutral way. The original research about what the Qur'an really meant cannot stay; quoting you, "I couldn't find the word antisemitic in any of the sources you used". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is providing context and explanation to the verse in question. If a verse is so notable to be specifically mentioned, its explanation also deserves a space. --Aminz 07:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"context and explanation to the verse in question" = original research. Do any of the sources used there refer to "antisemitism"? If not, they can't be included. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, if "context and explanation to the verse in question" is sourced to a wikipedian, like me for example, then it is definetly OR. But here the context is sourced to a scholar. The most you can say that either (i) I am misrepresenting the scholar or (ii) that the explanation of this verse is irrelevent. So far you have said (ii). However, the explanation is relevent in terms of NPOV. NPOV says that we must represent "fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source" on a particular issue. If the issue is that certain verses are antisemitic, then we must provide alternate views, esp. those held by mainstream Muslims.Bless sins 14:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed and well said. It is an a priori violation of NPOV to say this article can only accomodate RS's that discuss the Koran in terms of its alleged antisemitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

None of the sources you provided talk about "antisemitism"; indeed, above, you were quite insistent that sources had to specifically mention antisemitism. And for good reason, of course, since WP:NOR is quite clear on the subject: "Material counts as original research if it introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." The bold text is on the policy, I didn't invent it. The topic of the article is "Islam and antisemitism", not Qur'anic exegesis. Please observe policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please answer the following question: are verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 antisemitic, or atleast alleged to be antisemitic?Bless sins 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see this, for example. You know you can't add stuff that doesn't refer to antisemitism, you said so yourself above. Why do you keep doing so anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"you can't add stuff that doesn't refer to antisemitism". What exactly do you mean by that? The stuff added to the article must be in the context of antisemitism. This means the author doesn't need to mention antisemitism in every sentence. I never insisted that. As long as a reliable source says that the topic is relevent to antisemitism (and Islam), all notable (pereferably mainstream) POVs are relevent to this article.

WP says we can add material "in relation to the topic of the article".

You have yourself admitted that the verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are indeed relevent to the topic of antisemitism, and no doubt Islam. Thus the exegesis is "in relation to the topic of the article".Bless sins 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They're relevant to antisemitism because the sources allege they are antisemitic. Your sources don't mention antisemitism at all, anywhere. WP:NOR is quite clear about this, and I'm going to simply revert from now on. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can any of you guys see how the quotes presented from Hamas or others are in the context of antisemitism? --Aminz 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear case of OR. After citing something from FrontPageMagazine, a Wikipedian writes, "Thus, Hamas says," and then quotes something from Memri. This transition is what WP:NOR calls "synthesis" and explicitly forbids.

Jay, you say above that "The allegations are clearly that certain verses in the Qur'an are antisemitic, and they have been documented in a neutral way." Does the neutral documentation you refer to consist of allegations made in Memri, FrontPageMagazine, etc.?--G-Dett 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between neutral sources, and neutral presentation of sources. Please don't erect straw man arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, how can you say my source don't mention antisemitism anywhere? Secondly, which wikipolicy says that each source must mention antisemitism? I have only argued that arguments must be taken in context of antisemitism. Secondly, the exegesis is certainly relevent because it concerns verses that, according to yourself, are antisemitic. Please cite the wiki policy that says the exegesis is irrelevent or OR. Jayjg, your mass removal borders on vanadalism, as you have no good reason to do massively remove sourced text.Bless sins 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If your sources mention antisemitism, quote them. Second, I've told you a dozen times now the policy is WP:NOR, which says Material counts as original research if it introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article. The topic here is Islam and antisemitism. Third, I never said the verses were antisemitic at all; I said some sources alleged they were. If you want to bring other sources which say they are not, please do so - but all sources, pro or con, must discuss the verses in the context of antisemitim. Finally, your claim that removing original research "borders on vandalism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and your dogged determination to ignore policy and continue to enter it is verging on WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset>WP:NOR asks us to support synthesis with sources in relation to the topic of the article. The topic of the article here is 1) Islam and 2) antisemitism. Qutb and Maududi's analysis is clearly in relation to Islam. However, here in the article is has been alleged that certain verses of the quran are antisemitic. Thus 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are definetly relevent to the topic of the artilce, if not they shouldn't be mentioned here. So each of my sources is relevent to 1) Islam and to 2) verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 (allegedly anti-Semitic). Also I never said 'removing original research "borders on vandalism"'. That's clearly a false accusation. I said that removing sourced content borders on vandalism. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also please don't make Uncivil comments like "your dogged determination to ignore policy". "Dogged" is not a respectful term (especially due to its derivation from the word dog), and your conclusion that I'm "determined" to ignore wikipolicy is quite false.Bless sins 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If your sources don't mention antisemitism, then they're not relevant; the sources must be about both Islam and antisemitism, not just one or the other. The topic of this article is Islam and antisemitism, so sources must be about both. The topic of this article is not the Qur'an, or Muslim exegesis, but Islam and antisemitism. And the word "dogged" is neither uncivil, nor does it have any negative connotations. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"If your sources don't mention antisemitism, then they're not relevant". Nothing on wiki says this. The sources have to be in relation to the topic. Because, according to some sources, 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are anti-Semitic, and the sources are about those very verses in question, they are relevent. Thus the sources are relevent to both Islam and anti-Semitism.

Also, "dogged" when used as part of an allegation that I'm deliberately ignoring wiki policy, is certianly uncivil.Bless sins 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No response?Bless sins 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources you've used refer to antisemitism, so they couldn't possibly relate to this topic, which is Islam and antisemitism. This topic is about antisemitism; all the sources must relate to that; you can't just find one source which does, and then bring in anything you want to from any source at all, as a result. All sources must relate to Islam and antisemitism, not just the ones I bring. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my previous posts? Clearly the verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are (allegedly) antisemitic, no? The article seems to agree, and presents that view as fact. My sources relate both to "antisemitic" verses of the Quran, and Islam. So, where's the problem?Bless sins 13:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The article provides sources which allege the verses are antisemitic? Feel free to provide sources that also discuss the verses in relation the the claim of antisemitism. Which source of yours mentions antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article already contains sources that allege the verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are anti-semitic, and even portrays that opinion as a fact. The exegesis is clearly regarding those verses. Thus the exegesis is in relation to the topic of the article, since the verses are alleged to be anti-semitic.Bless sins 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But your sources don't contain any links. Your sources are not about Islam and antisemitism, the are about verses 5:60 etc. It is only you who claim they are relevant to the topic of the article, which is Islam and antisemitism, not verses 5:60 etc. Please provide sources which are relevant to the topic, not just ones you claim are relevant to the topic. Prove it by quoting them talking about the topic of the article, Islam and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't claim that verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 are anti-semitic, you and your sources do. Are 5:60-65, 2:65, and 7:166 relevent to the topic of the article or not? If not, then the exegesis doesn't belong, and neither does the section on Muslim beleifs that Jews were transformed into apes and pigs. If yes, the exegesis clearly belongs.Bless sins 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)`

I don't claim they are either, and none of the sources are "mine". Some sources claim they are though; bring sources that claim they're not. All sources must relate to the topic of the article. Is the topic of the article verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166? No, it's Islam and antisemitism. Bring sources about that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IF the verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166 merit inclusion into this article, then so do their exegesis. IF the verses do not merit inclusion, then there is a lot material in connection to these verses that must be removed.Bless sins 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia editing is not about "tit for tat". All sources must relate to Islam and antisemitism. Period. No exceptions. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. And since verses 5:60-61 = antisemitism, then relaible sources on 5:60-61 are relevent to this article.Bless sins 04:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no assertion that "5:60-61 = antisemitism", it brings sources that discuss the issue. All souces must refer to Islam and antisemitism. All of them. All. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

the article certainly does make that assertion. And the assertion is (presumably) based on reliable source, else it should not be there.Bless sins 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Well, let's examine your sources: Notes # 12 ("Mutation of Israelites"), 13 ("Hizbullah Al-Manar..."), 15 ("Based on Koranic Verses...") link to sources that don't even mention anti-semitism. Why haven't you removed those sources?

The only source that mentions anti-semitism is " "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism" by Jamie Glazov. But Glazov is a scholar on Soviet history, and hardly one on Islam. The only scholar cited in the article is Khaleel Mohammed (K Mohammed). But there are two problems: first do we even know that K Mohammed is bieng fairly represented by frontpagemag, an unreliable source?

Secondly, this is what K Mohammed says about the Quran:

The Qur'an respects certain groups of Jews, and seems to think certain other groups (of Jews) are not observing Judaism.

Q2:47, Q2:62, Q3:33, 5:20: those verses certainly do respect the Jews, in fact, telling them that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. The Qur’an refers to the Torah as a book of light (Q5:44)--and the foregoing are only a few examples of the respect of Judaism and its Scripture.

5:60: This is in polemic, simply addressed to those who were making fun of Islamic beliefs. The story of God transforming those with whom he is angry is a well-known motif in midrashic work: check tractate sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud wherein some of those who attempted to build the tower of Babel were transformed into apes.

one of Muhammad's wives was Jewish--safiyyah bint Huyayy--and if Muslims are to believe the Jews are descended from apes and swine, then Muhammad was married to a descendant of such creatures. Of course this is unacceptable to Muslim sensibilities.

It is surprising that none of this is in the article. Perhaps because all of the above quotes do not demonize Islam.Bless sins 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all none of the sources are mine. They are just sources. I won't respond to any comments that allege any of the sources here are mine. Second, if you don't think the sources are relevant, for whatever reason, then bring it up here, and we'll discuss it. You cannot add inappropriate sources simply because you think other sources are inappropriate. Third, if you have any other relevant sources which talk about Islam and antisemitism, then you should bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't be mentioning that verses 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166, since no source really connects them to anti-semtism. AN if we are not mentioning these verses then, ofcourse, we won't mention the exegesis either.Bless sins 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We won't be mentioning an "exegesis" regardless, since that's original research. Now, which of specific sources about "Apes and pigs" do you not think are appropriate, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We will be mentioning the exegesis if the allegations that certain verses of the Quran are anti-semitic stays. I have already stated above that there are sources that don't mention anti-semitism. It'd help if you actually read my comments before responding to them.Bless sins 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we won't. First agree to abide by the WP:NOR policy, then we'll look at the sources in the existing article. "Exegesis" = "original research. You must agree to policy first, or there's no point in continuing. I'm willing to be ruthless on the sources, but given the runaround you've put me on for the past week or more, you need to agree to policy first. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, I'm not sure why you wouldn't agree to it. You know your original research will be ruthlessly reverted, and almost instantly. Why not agree not to include it in the first place? You'll get much further that way, I've already agreed to be ruthless about the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to WP:NOR, I always have. You should agree that wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a place where users can vilify Muslims and even practice double standards to do so. Please answer the arguments and stop evading the discussion.Bless sins 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree not to insert the WP:NOR violating "exegesis" that doesn't refer to antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing the position that Islam is antisemtic? I agree that I will not insert any OR. However, I wasn't inserting OR anyways.Bless sins 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Last chance, B.s. Agree that sources must refer to Islam and antisemitism, or they are original research. And I mean it. Last chance. Agree, without any waffling, or claims that you were doing it anyway, or other nonsense. Agree that all sources must refer to Islam and antisemitism, and don't put anything else on that statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jayjg, I don't take orders from you, rather from Wiki policies (amongst other sources). I, Bless_sins, solemnly agree with latest version of WP:NOR and WP:ATT, so long as my edits on wikipedia are concerned. I also agree with the follwoing statement : "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article".

Now Jayjg, you should agree that wikipedia is not a soapbox.Bless sins 04:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way, then. I tried. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So...what is your last comment supposed to mean? Are you going to continue with discussion, not going to edit this article anymore, or what?Bless sins 05:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ALso, think of it this way: Consider a source alleges that Genesis 3:11 promotes racism towards Gentiles. Now this allegation is so ridiculous that mainstream scholars of Jewish scriptures haven't heard of it, and thus not bothered to write anything specific in relation to this topic. So how exactly does wikipedia show that Genesis 3:11 is not promoting racism? Inevitably, we'll have to quote something that is in relation to Genesis 3:11, but not in relation to racism.

The same applies to the Quran. IF some maniac was to claim that Quran 4:12 commands muslims to invade the planet Mars, you will not find a single scholar that talk about Islam and the invasion of planet Mars. The only way to refute that claim is to show how Muslims really interpret Quran 4:12. Hope this helps.Bless sins 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, one cannot use original research to rebut a claim that Genesis 3:11 promotes racism towards gentiles. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The external links from this article should be those that link to meaningful material on Islam and antiSemitism.

• http://www.jimena-justice.org/ doesn't really talk about the Islamic faith and antiSemitism, only about the history of Jews in the Middle East.
• http://www.pmw.org.il is a website that considers itself an organization that allegedly provides "an understanding of Palestinian society through the monitoring of the Palestinian Arabic language media and schoolbooks".[1] It is basically a collection Palestinian media excerpts, without any relvence to the Islamic faith whatsoever. Nor is the website dedicated to antiSemitism in general.

Neither of the two links belong.Bless sins 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of citecheck tag

The tag {{citecheck}} has been added to many sections of this article. What exactly is disputed int these sections?--Sefringle 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See apes and pigs above. Only examples of antiSemitism must be included here, not "unfavorable attitude towards Jews". Bless sins 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfavorable attitudes toward jews is antisemitism.--Sefringle 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's OR. If it is why doesn't the source label it as such? Find a reliable secondary source that says that and feel free to put it in. BTW, you at your 3rr limit.Bless sins 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage. It explains how any form of prejudice toward Jews is defined as antisemitism, and is sourced to Bernard Lewis. see [2]. Also, see the definition here: [3]--Sefringle 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but to say that (for example) 100% of Jordanians are "antiSemitc" would be wrong and misleading. "Unfavorable attitude towards Jews" does not mean antiSemitism. You can, however, include it in an article about the relaitonship between Muslims and Jews.Bless sins 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, all "favorable" means "characterized by approval or support"[4]. Bless sins 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfavorable would thus mean the opposite [5]. So in other words, all Jordanians, according to the survey, therefore disapprove or do not support the Jews as a whole. In other words, they simply don't like Jews. Last I checked, that is discrimination against Jews, consitering discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" [6]--Sefringle 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>That doesn't change the fact that you need a reliable source making the allegation of antiSemitism. WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources says, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Thus you can only describe the poll not interpret it.

"This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Please don't try to interpret the poll. Rather find reliable, published secondary sources for your claims.Bless sins 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote from the source is as follows: (from [7])

"Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world. In Lebanon, all Muslims and 99% of Christians say they have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Similarly, 99% of Jordanians have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Large majorities of Moroccans, Indonesians, Pakistanis and six-in-ten Turks also view Jews unfavorably."

In other words, 99% of Jordanians view Jews unfavorably.--Sefringle 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, Unfavorable attitudes toward jews is antisemitism is purely your own definition, and most of scholars don't agree with. This comment from User:Gren is also relevant. [8] --Aminz 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The difinition of antisemitism can be viewed here: [9]. If a person is unfavorable, you dislike that person, well at least in this context. And comtempt for Jews as a whole is antisemitism. And what Gren was refering to doesn't seem to contradict what I am saying.--Sefringle 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In order to understand Antisemitism, we need to see how the scholars are using that. It has a precise meaning and it should be addressed carefully. An scholar should decide which incident is antisemitism and which one is not, not us. Otherwise, that would be original research. --Aminz 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Antisemitism is "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatrid toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religous facilities." [10] Is this an acceptable defininition?--Sefringle 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I think the motivation for Antisemitism should be that they are Jew. A hatred towards a category including Jews is not antisemitism. In any case, in wikipedia, we should not decide what incident is really antisemitism and which one is not. In many cases some scholars might agree with that and some don't. We should find which scholar says which thing is antisemitism and add it here. --Aminz 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point we are trying to redefine antisemitism. I think such discussion belongs at Talk:Antisemitism.--Sefringle 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember, per WP we can't interpret data, and should leave that to scholars. If you are right about the majority of Muslims bieng antiSemitism, then why are you unable to find a reliable secondary source that says this?Bless sins 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because while there are reliable sources that do say this, they don't explicitly say that. They all post anti-semitic statistics by country. (And if you noticed in the article, I never wrote there that most muslims are anti-semitic. I only added statistics.)--Sefringle 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And PEW does say "Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world." as I already mentioned.--Sefringle 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Because while there are reliable sources that do say this" please present the reliable sources that say "X% of Muslims are antisemitic" etc. I doubt the people who wrote the report were unfamiliar with the word "antisemitism". Yet the only claiming this term is you and you only, not the writers of the report. By now it is clear that you have no sources to back your claims up.Bless sins 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources states that "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. To label 99% of a country's population as "antisemetic" is indeed a "politically charged issue". On top of that your source doesn't even use the word "antisemetism".

WP:ATT#Wikipedia_does_not_publish_original_research_or_original_thought says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." (emphasis already present in WP, not added by me). Thus you must present sources that "explicitly" state the accusation of antisemitism.Bless sins 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And they do. Did you read the source? Anti-Jewish sentiment means antisemitism.--Sefringle 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That basically your OR. Does the article actually say that "Anti-Jewish sentiment means antisemitism"? WP says "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources". Take note of the word "explicily".Bless sins 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. It sounds to me like you are trying to redefine antisemitism.--Sefringle 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent? So you think that Wp:ATT, a core policy of wikipedia is irrelevent? I'm not redefining antisemitism, just asking you to point out where the word exists. You are clearly violating WP:ATT by your OR. OR has no place on wikipedia.Bless sins 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the policy is irrelevant to wikipedia, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing said so far conflicts with that policy and nothing said so far in this discussion is supported with that policy. So, it is irrelevant to this discussion.--Sefringle 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an old trick, to fill up sections of an article that offend you with tags that disfigure it, so that it's hard to read. I've removed the nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The only nonsense here is the OR you are defending. The report does NOT use the word antisemitism. If you wish to assert antismeitism, atleast find a source that says that. Again I'll repeat: "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources". Take note of the word "explicily".

Also WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources says "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." So far "antisemitism" is only your interpretation.Bless sins 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish sentiment is antisemitism. They are synonyms. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Firslty the phrase used is "unfavorable view of Jews". Secondly, I strongly doubt the writers of the report were unfamiliar with the word "antisemitism". They could've use the word if they wanted - but they didn't. Find a source that says "antisemitism" per WP:ATT.Bless sins 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Unfavorable view of Jews"="Antisemitism". That's as simple as that. Beit Or 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your OR, it's as simple as that.Bless sins 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the common definition. Beit Or 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if "Unfavorable view of Jews"="Antisemitism", then should we move this article to "Islam and unfavorable view of Jews"?Bless sins 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please mind WP:POINT. Beit Or 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the question.Bless sins 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a fair question. Bear in mind also that if the Pew multiple-choice questionaire about favorable/unfavorable opinions tells us something about "antisemitism," then it also tells us important facts about "Islamophobia." In particular 22% of Americans are Islamophobes. 1 in 4 Canadians, a third of French, and half of the German populations are Islamophobic. Should we add these statistics to the "Islamophobia" article?

I wonder if there are any Pew polls about whether man-on-the-street Israelis have favorable or unfavorable opinions of Arabs. --G-Dett 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to look for such polls, but even if find them, they don't belong to this article. Beit Or 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Why is it POV? --Aminz 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cohen says "Most scholars believe". It is thus a report not a view of a certain scholar. --Aminz 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just Cohen's opinion that most scholars agree with him. Beit Or 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At some point we are trusting scholars... do you have any reason to believe that's not the case? Most of what I read talks about how European ideas did heavily influence the nature of antisemitism in the Middle East. It is what I was taught. gren グレン 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the quote sourced to Cohen more carefully, I must concede that it just makes no sense. "Most scholars, however concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently..." Modern world is very recent by definition; "antisemtiism in the modern world" couldn't arise in antiquity. The question is what Cohen actually says. Beit Or 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We can attribute cohen's opinion to Cohen. But the fact that his book is published as the "Oxford handbook of Jewish studies", by the Oxford University Press, his arguments are pretty much supported by Oxford University. But I do find it hypocritical that Beit Or suggests some pieces of texts are "Cohen's opinion", while he she protrays the opinion of Gerber et al. as fact.Bless sins 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote could be even back up with the views of Jewish/Zionist scholars like Stillman and Lewis.[11] --Aminz 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are many scholars that support this view, then we should, like Battle of Khaybar, attribute the view to "Modern scholars".Bless sins 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro II

Jayjg, Cohen is writing not his own view but that of most scholars. Beit Or says that only Cohen thinks most scholars believe in that. What is your argument for removing that. [12] Do you also say that the Oxford Handbook of Judaism is mistaken? --Aminz 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's as if you didn't participate in the discussion in the previous section. Cohen states a tautology; antisemitism in the recent times is a recent phenomenon. In any event, we shouldn't be skewing the introduction by inserting the view of one individual as "truth". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning to me is clear. "that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently": The Arab anti-semitism that we see in the modern world arose relatively recently. How can Cohen write a meaningless tautology in such a reputable publication? --Aminz 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to ask him directly. Beit Or 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I ask: Mr. Cohen, did you write a meaningless tautology in your book and surely he will reply me back. --Aminz 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Qur'an section was discussed above, you might want to explain the undiscussed arguments you had when you restored it. --Aminz 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "restore" the section, it was already there. I removed the deliberate disfiguring of the section, and inserted proper references specifically linking the statements to antisemitism, as you requested. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentences should be attributed to who says them. Please check the publications and the sources. --Aminz 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentences are attributed, in the footnotes; one needn't list the name of every single scholar who feels that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Norman Stillman also agrees with the view of most scholars: "Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books." --Aminz 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stillman seems to be talking about the introduction of European antisemitism into the region (e.g. Protocols of the Elders etc.); that, of course, doesn't preclude the native Qur'an/hadith/dhimmi based Muslim and Arab antisemitism, which had been around since the 700s. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stillman says Antisemitism. So does Claude Cahen, and Bernard Lewis. --Aminz 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But they don't appear to be talking about the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, the Quran section has been discussed and argued before. You can check out the archives on talk. The section Aminz is reverting to is infact the longstanding one. If you wish to re-open the dispute, please read the previous discussion (in archives) first.Bless sins 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention "the Quran section". Can you be more explicit? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to edits by Aminz here, later reverted by you.Bless sins 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There didn't appear to be any consensus for these changes, and one can't quote every single scholar who holds a position, that's ridiculous. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look closely at the publishers and the title of the references, you'll see why it needs to be attributed. --Aminz 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I find it interesting that you (Jayjg) removed my comments from your talk page. [13] It's really disappointing that you choose to ignore legitimate criticism of your actions, rather than respond to it. You should appreciate it if someone brings to your attention the errors you have committed.Bless sins 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the big yellow box on top of Jayjg's talk page. Beit Or 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a broad scholarly consensus that what we refer to as "antisemitism" (coined in the 19th-century) was born and bred in Europe, and only very recently imported to the Arab world.

This article reads like a propaganda leaflet.--G-Dett 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Down, boy. I came in through the side door from NAS.--G-Dett 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV. Beit Or 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One-line contributions with an abbreviated link to a policy or guideline are not really the most friendly or helpful way to keep the talk page productive. Can we all agree to avoid them in future? I will anyway. Best wishes to all. Itsmejudith 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, check the article's history (for the section on Quran). This was discussed, changed, and that was the end of that. The material you revert was longstanding material. If you want to re-open the case please state your arguments very clearly below, and rebut the arguments presented previously against the version you are reverting to.Bless sins 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there was never "the end of it". It was just you being the most active and persistent reverter. Beit Or 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You never answered any of the objections I posed. Perhaps you can do so now.Bless sins 14:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I answered your objections many times, but you kept repeating the same arguments over and over again. Beit Or 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No not really. The discussion may have been archived, but its not gone. Paste your "responses" if feel you gave them.Bless sins 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to copy my comments dozens of times. You're always welcome to read the archived discussions if you failed to do that when they were ongoing. Beit Or 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro III

I find this edit[14] troubling. The opposition to this material strikes me as bizarre. Scholars of all political persuasions – from Noam Chomsky to Daniel Pipes – agree with this basic bit of history. It's like we're going over the heads of scholars to write an agit-prop leaflet; it's borderline bananas to have the article skirt this crucial matter of consensus and launch right into tendentious statements about the Koran, presented as uncontroversial fact. Come on, guys. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.--G-Dett 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, neither Chomsky, nor Pipes are quoted here. In addition, the article is not on linguistics. Beit Or 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following this article very closely at the moment but would just like to point out that "Islam and antisemitism considers" is not a good start for the article in line with WP lead guidelines. Readers need to know what the subject is, not what it considers. Could we find a previously uninvolved editor with no axes to grind who would advise?Itsmejudith 21:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right Beit Or. We don't quote the linguist Noam Chomsky or the blogger Daniel Pipes. Instead we quote an assortment of obscure Saudi sheiks, FrontPageMagazine, "a Palestinian, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya," a three-year old schoolgirl, and whatever else a few hours of hapless googling, blatant OR and agit-prop hackwork can dredge up. What a shameful mess. If not for ethical and intellectual reasons then for the sake of WP:BLP, we should be wary of defaming people – in this case a billion of them. --G-Dett 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, and "perhaps the foremost Sunni Arab authority"?[15] Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, Imam of the Masjid al-Haram – the most important mosque in Mecca? Those are an assortment of obscure Saudi sheiks? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, the 3 year old stuff is pretty iffy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Iffy, or just plain-old OR of the hack variety?

Who is "Saudi Sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi"? The link provided for him is dead. Wikipedia has nothing on him. Google gives three hits – all links to this very quote, provided by partisan websites devoted to collecting and typing up agit-prop like this article.

What about "a Palestinian, Dr Ahmad Abu Halabiya"? Who's he, and why's he quoted?--G-Dett 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiya, Member of the Palestinian Sharianic (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies, Islamic University[16] Beit Or 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Beit Or. That link you give seems to be the only thing out there on this "doctor." Your source is a self-published partisan blog of sorts compiled by "Itamar Marcus." Mr. Marcus appears to have culled this information from a usenet forum post.[17] I'm going to remove the material, for the obvious reasons.--G-Dett 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Google his name to see more links on who he is. The claim thar Palestinian Media Watch is "a self-published partisan blog" is too ridiculous to comment upon. Beit Or 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is PMW published by, if not by its author, editor, and compiler Itamar Marcus? In what sense is it not a blog? --G-Dett 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The blog format is that of an online diary, per "[we]b log": entries are dated and appear in linear succession. If it doesn't do that, it's not a blog.Proabivouac 06:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

External links section

I removed the geocities link. Are the frontpage.com links appropriate? Thanks, --Tom 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless they rely on a reliable source.Bless sins 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The first link is sourced to Andrew G. Bostom, an Associate Professor of Medicine. What medicine has to do with Islam beats me. The second source is sourced to a professor in religious studies. However, we need a reliable source to verify that this interview actually took place and is not being fabricated.Bless sins 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Aren't they a "hate" site? I would like to see them go, but maybe get some more feedback? Anyways, thanks for your imput! --Tom 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They are certainly a very controversial website. I think we should find better sources.Bless sins 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage is political, strident and controversial, but is no hate site. Its main issues are combatting what Mr. Horowitz perceives as a leftist bias on American university campuses, opposition to political Islamism, which it blames for terrorism, and a decidedly hawkish pro-Israel stance. On the first of these, they have been remarkably active and influential. They make a point of including a number of Muslim writers, who represent what would be described in the west as "moderate" (i.e., liberal and "progressive") interpretations of Islam. I don't recall having seen anything which would normally be considered hate speech, and doubt that Horowitz would subscribe to this or allow this. It is certainly partisan, and should be treated accordingly, though if authors are respected in their own right, this should also be considered.Proabivouac 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Proabivouac. The question is whether an article on "Islam and Antisemitism" should be heavily sourced to FPM. I think to ask that question is to answer it. The equivalent would be an article on "Judaism and Islamophobia," heavily sourced to ZNET and Norman Finkelstein's blog.--G-Dett 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not heavily sourced to FPM. Please reign in your fantasy. Beit Or 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

After Beit Or restored a bunch of unsourced material[18], HumusSapiens was good enough to source some of it.[19] The conference paper by Leah Kinberg linked to by Humus is interesting indeed,[20] since we seem to be plagiarizing heavily from it.--G-Dett 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavy plagiarism from a single scholar who writes in broken English ("the idea of the Jews as apes and pigs is drawn from the Koran that knows to tell about a group of Jews" etc.) – may go a long way towards explaining why this article is so badly written, so choked with clumsy phrases and rank propaganda.--G-Dett 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The material was always sourced, only imperfectly (the immediate/intermediate source was not cited). I do not see that serious (anywhere but Wikipedia, at least) allegations such as "plagiarism" are remotely warranted.Proabivouac 06:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look again, Proabivouac. This has nothing to do with immediate/intermediate sources. This has to do with copying whole sentences from someone's conference paper, and pasting them directly into this article – first with no attribution whatsoever, then with a general attribution but no quotation marks around the lifted material.

This is the most elementary and obvious sort of plagiarism that exists. That HumusSapiens has just shoved it right back in is, as they say, shocking but not surprising.

There are a good many unsourced statements in this awful article. I'm going to go through them and see how many have been plagiarized. If editors here insist on just shoving the lifted material back in, then the next step is to contact directly the authors whose material is being misused.--G-Dett 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to contact anyone you wish. Beit Or 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While G-Dett is desperately trying to find a better reason to censor relevant and referenced citations pretending that it is the "broken English" that she doesn't like, I have provided 3 other refs. More can be easily found, all you need is NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Humus and Beit Or, I don't think either of you is quite getting it. You can't just copy and paste from a source, even if you've given the source you're lifting from in a footnote. It is an intellectual property issue. You can paraphrase with attributions, and if one of you wants to take the time to do that with this junk, then I'll let the results of that stay (whatever of it passes muster with WP:NOR, that is). But this entire paragraph –

As Dhimmis, they had to pay a poll tax, jizya, and the Koran (9:29) insisted that the tax would be paid while they were humiliated. Also, Jews were prohibited from worship in temples higher than mosques, no new temples could be built, they were required to ride a donkey and not a horse, and men were required to sit sidesaddle, like a woman. Dhimmi women were not allowed to wear costly clothing. Dhimmis could not adopt Muslim names and were restricted in government service. Muslims legally married free dhimmi women, but dhimmi men could not marry Muslim women nor own a Muslim slave

– is lifted from someone's conference paper and pasted in here without quotation marks. That's plagiarism, period; learn what it means. --G-Dett 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But you were removing other pieces: [21]. BTW, note that I was the one who found the refs, so I reject insinuations of plagiarism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating that there's been plagiarism; I'm pointing out instances of plagiarism that will be self-evident to any literate person versed in basic standards of attribution. Yes, you found the refs, which makes all the more absurd your failure to recognize how they'd been plagiarized by one of our editors.

"Three and a half years old girl" is the solecism that gives the game away, Humus. "Three-and-a-half-year-old girl" is what the original author should have written, but didn't, and what the Wikipedian who added this junk would have written if he were paraphrasing instead of plagiarizing.

And finally, please stop dodging the OR-issue. Who's the reliable source for the analysis here about how "the impact of these teachings was demonstrated" etc.? If analysis of this kind is not sourced it's OR. Plagiarism and original research are usually mutually exclusive, but some wizard here has managed to artfully blend them into a new form of drivel.--G-Dett 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or and Proabivouac, if you're going to insist on inserting plagiarized material, plagiarize it from Pipes who speaks English.--G-Dett 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to get uppish. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns

Why are users removing the lead, sourced to Mark Cohen, and completely relevent to the topic?

Also, can a user provide the full quote for the following text: "In 888, in Palermo, Sicily, the Muslim Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) issued an order that Jews wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and affix the same image to their homes. For Christians, the image was that of a pig."Bless sins 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess because it spins the entire article according to your POV?

It would be good if we could agree on a sourced and balanced lead, which doesn't attempt to pre-judge the question of what qualifies as antisemitism.Proabivouac 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is doomed unless there is an agreement on the definition of Antisemitism. Seeing how people who question the definition of antisemitism are labeled antisemites, this is going to be tricky. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is doomed, and antisemitism is already properly defined in the corresponding article. With all due respect, an idiosyncratic opinion of Mark Cohen doesn't belong in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Cohen is speaking for the University of Oxford in the intro, not for himself. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I have said in a hidden comment in the article source, there needs to be a smooth transition between Muslims and Arabs. This article is supposed to be about Islam and antisemitism, yet it starts out with Arabs and antisemitism. Perhaps we can find some scholars who talk about non-Arab Islamic antisemitism (Iranian, Turkish, Indonesian, Indian (Hitler's cross)??) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mark Cohen is speaking for the University of Oxford in the intro, not for himself."

Apart from the general silliness of this statement, it would have no bearing on his academic authority, only (possibly) on the type of review to which his work was subjected prior to publication. It is actually quite common for books to include the name of a University Press in their titles; this does not imply that any paper found therein speaks for the University.

Indeed, Oxford Press itself distinguishes this collection from others by asserting that it does not restrict itself to "agreed-upon facts": "There have been some attempts in recent years to encapsulate current conclusions about particular aspects of Jewish Studies, but these other works aim to provide compendia of agreed facts rather than a survey of interests and directions such as is found in the Oxford Handbook."[22].Proa♥bivouac 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But let's be honest, if the book had something preposterous in it, the Oxford University would have requested to be disassociated from the book. But they haven't. I guess it would be a sort of implicit association with the university. But at the very least, it represents the opinions of "Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen and David Sorkin" (per the oup link you gave). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That it is published by a reputable university press of course adds greatly to its credibility. I do not believe that anyone would contest that this is a WP:Reliable Source, but to pitch it as the collective opinion of Oxford University is ridiculous: it is just one more citable academic source.Proa♥bivouac 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is a reliable source, then what's the problem? In fact, Cohen is the MOST, and currently the only, reliable source in the intro.Bless sins 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "dubious" tag

Please provide the exact quote of the source concerned here, as requested in the article.Bless sins 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't blindly revert

[23]

I added many edits that were not related to the current dispute. Please be more careful in reverting next time.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"The relationship between Islam and antisemitism has various dimensions. Some writers have perceived antisemitism to Islam and antisemitism considers antisemitism among Muslims; in the Qu'ran; in Islamic history; and in the modern world. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are important issues in contemporary Middle East politics and the relations of the state of Israel with its neighbors in the region."

That (what you reverted to) doesn't even make sense. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the Intro

Beit Or, to say that Cohen writes a meaningless tautology is a bad excuse to remove him(like the other excuse that Mark Cohen is mistaken that most scholars believe). He is not. We can quote him word by word, and in any case you shouldn't have any problem with it. If it is so clear that he is writing a meaningless sentence, the reader will surely get it. --Aminz 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That certain material is meaningless is the best reason for removing it that I can think of. Beit Or 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Once it was POV (i.e. it wasn't meaningless). Now you say it is meaningless. Interesting!!!--Aminz 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Use the talk pages! Enough revert warring.

At the time of this writing, the last 12 edits to this article have been reverts[24]. Enough is enough. Talk here! Let's work together. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend reverting any edits done by Special:Contributions/72.88.165.163, he seems to be a wikistalker. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, we have already talked here. Please take a look at the above sections. --Aminz 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy/paste it here --Aminz 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see this these quotes:

Mark Cohen: most scholars conclude that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")

"Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books."

Lewis: "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..."

Claude Cahen: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism."

Encyclopedia of religion in the Antisemitism article: "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. "

Isn't all these enough? --Aminz 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. But when I see 12 consecutive "revert" in the history, and not corresponding activity in the talk page, I thought it was something fishy.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See, Beit Or first removed Cohen's quote arguing that only Cohen thinks most scholars think that way (i.e. Mark Cohen who is specialized in this field is ignorant and is mistaken what most scholars think). Then he said Cohen's in the The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism is a tautalogy, i.e. antisemitism in the recent times is a recent phenomenon. One can refute this idea easily. 1. I think Cohen is saying The Arab anti-semitism that we see in the modern world arose relatively recently. 2. To say Cohen starts a sentence by "Infact most scholars agree" and then continues with a tautalogy is weird in such a reputable source. If it is tautalogy, why he says: "most scholars". This quote closely follows what other scholars have said (e.g. please see Norman Stillman's quote above). 3. If it is a tautalogy, then why these editors remove it as a POV of Cohen???? A tautalogy can't be Cohen's POV, can it???? 4. If it is a tautalogy, then including it shouldn't be controversial, should it? --Aminz 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you'll help your case a lot if you recall that the talk page is for logic-based arguments, whiles articles are for encyclopedically valuable, coherent texts. Neither articles, nor talk pages are meant to serve as quote repositories. Beit Or 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All you have proven, Aminz, is that you can copy and paste. There is no reason (other than POV) to push Cohen into the intro. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All you have proven, Humus_sapiens, is not to accepting truth. There is no reason (other than POV) to remove Cohen from the intro.--Aminz 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Parodying your fellow Wikipedians is uncivil. Beit Or 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Your misrepresentation of my comment is uncivil --Aminz 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, your denial and POV quote mining did not and will not work no matter how many times you try it. If 1066 Granada massacre, History of the Jews in Morocco#Under the Almohads (1146-1400s), Mellah, Farhud are not enough, we should have more articles listing factual evidence to expose that denial. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..." --Aminz 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Prejudices against Jews is the definition of antisemitism.--Sefringle 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was Lewis's quote. Sefringle, there should be elements of uniqueness. That's why Cahen in Encyclopedia of Islam says:"there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." --Aminz 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle hit the nail on the head. Aminz, the fact that Muslims were anti-Christian doesn't mean they weren't antisemitic. Arrow740 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to create a similar article to this one about anti-Christian prejudice and Islam, seeing how Islam and antisemitism and Islam and anti-Christianity are so similar; maybe titling it Islam and anti-Christianity. Any better ideas for a title, please suggest.--Sefringle 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting interesting. Now we are inventing new words. What about "Anti-Christianism"? lol --Aminz 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Christian_prejudice. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cohen (along with Lewis) is one of very few encyclopedic sources for this article. What's odd about the disputed material is that what's being so conspicuously cited to Cohen – that "Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century" – is actually a matter of scholarly consensus. --G-Dett 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Islam and antisemitism allegations

This would follow the format provided by Zionism and racism allegations, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, etc. etc.

Please discuss.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been cross-posted to the articles I mentioned, here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirbytime (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

• Oppose Christianity and antisemitism is not alleged and neither is Islamic antisemitism. Second, there is definently antisemitism in the muslim world, which is the focus of this article. Such a move would be making light of clear antisemitic acts in the Islamic world. I am also aginst the Zionism and Racism move, and I will probably undo it soon if there isn't more opinion offered.--Sefringle 02:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just want consistency. This page can be moved, or the other pages can be moved. But at the moment, it doesn't seem very fair to say that racism in zionism is alleged, while antisemitism in Islam is fact(implicitly). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest undoing the Zionism and racism move. I am opposed to the move anyway, dispite my support for zionism.--Sefringle 02:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Jayjg. There must be more reason to your opposition than just POINT. Also, if I was to go to the "Zionism and racism allegations" page an propose a move to "Zionism and racism", would you support me? Why not? Bless sins 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother discussing anything with you until you learn and abide by WP:NOR. That's first, and it will be my only response to you from now on until you stop violating it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very incivil to User:Bless sins and completely unhelpful to this talk page, since you have not clarified when and where you think the user breached NOR. And since when was breaching NOR an excuse for ostracising an editor? Itsmejudith 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On this article, Itsmejudith, over and over again; he's fully aware of where. Please read the talk page, or look at his edits. There's no point discussing other issues with an editor who persistently insists on breaking Wikipedia's most basic content rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support.Bless sins 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simply ridiculous.Proabivouac 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Ha ha, very funny. Arrow740 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support, looking for consistency per Kirbytime and Sefringle. Itsmejudith 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I support consistency where it applies: across similar entries. If no difference is made between undeniable facts and allegations, someone is trying to make a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Nonsense. Antisemitism in the Muslim world was and continues to be real. Beit Or 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's two fundamental content policies. Please do not persist in inserting material that violates it; particularly material that "introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article". The topic of this article is "Islam and antisemitism". Please don't insert material that doesn't quote sources referring to "Islam and antisemitism". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NOR requires original research. I've asked the question here --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jayjg. If you are talking about the exegesis, I have shown you already (in the "Apes and pigs" section) that the exegesis is both relevent to Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do any of the sources you use mention antisemitism? The issue is not whether you believe they are relevant, but whether the sources say they are relevant. Did they make the argument it is relevant to antisemitism? That's what the policy requires. Please quote them stating it, not you asserting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"A source that only mentions Islam xor Antisemitism should be fine, as long as it verifies a fact or argument. That's all. However, there may be a case where a source describes Islam, but does not take into account Antisemitism and is thus erroneous, although this is not always the case. Vice versa may happen as well. Gracenotes" Taken from here --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes's opinion is fascinating, but it doesn't really say much one way or the other. Given that Gracenotes has only been editing regularly for 4 months or so, it would probably be helpful to get the views of people who are longtime editors, and who have actually had experience creating and editing the policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious as to why Mawdudi's and Qutb's views were accorded such prominence, as they are not widely considered to be the best representatives of mainstream historical interpretation of the Qur'an.Proabivouac 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg why don't you respond to me in the Apes and Pigs section instead of continuously accusing me of violating WP:NOR?? I have responded to all you concerns there. The discussion will be a lot more productive then throwing accusations at me.Bless sins 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you repeatedly there; why did you ignore my responses, and ignore WP:NOR? You still haven't found any sources which are actually on Islam and antisemitism; you need to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To Proabivouac: Maududi and Qutb are the only scholarly sources on Quran that are in this article. Bless sins 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither of them refer to antisemitism. Please find sources that refer to Islam and antisemitism, per WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes has only been editing for four months therefore can be disregarded? So much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then! Itsmejudith 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Gracenotes has only been editing for four months, and therefore probably doesn't have as strong a grasp as policy as someone who has been editing, say, for two years. Let's not invent straw man arguments, ok? In any event, it's moot, since Gracenotes' comment didn't actually say anything one way or the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, as I've shown you in the "Apes and Pigs" section, the sources are in relation to Islam AND anti-semitism. If you have any further questions, I'd love to answer them, please post them in "Apes and Pigs". However, please don't go around accusing me of violating WP:NOR.Bless sins 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources you've used refer to antisemitism, so they couldn't possibly relate to this topic, which is Islam and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't accuse me of ignoring your comments. As you (and everyone else) can see that the last two comments on the "Apes and pigs" section are mine. On the contrary it is you who ignore comments, by not responding to them and sometimes even deleting them.Bless sins 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You must be ignoring my comments, because you just keep repeating yourself. I've explained this many times before; every reference used must be in relation to the topic of the article. Don't bring any policy violating references that do not cite sources directly related to the topic of the article, and don't repeat yourself that because some references do so, anything goes. Material counts as original research if it introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article. Don't make your own arguments about Islam and antisemitism; cite source which are making arguments about Islam and antisemitism.Remember, the topic of this article isn't Suras 5:60-65,2:65, and 7:166, it's Islam and antisemitism. Find sources about Islam and antisemitism, and don't repeat your previous arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary you are not even considering my posts. The sources are in relation to BOTH Islam and antisemitism. Please repond to me on the "Apes and pigs" section.Bless sins 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I already have, but none of your sources mention antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some opinion from muslim and jews, perhaps.

As a Muslim, I truthly believe we Muslim does not teached to discriminate other human being because of their race, color and genetic. I truthly believe Quran doesnt in anyway says that all the jews are sinner. they are those(the jews) that accept Islam, at the early history of Islam and according to Quran some jews against the teaching of Islam(we believe every prophet of Allah teach and believe in religion of Islam only) thats why the jews(the one that against the teaching of Islam) are mention in the Quran. so I dont think this article is not appropriate and Islam is no way teach the follower to be antisemite or what so ever, and please if and only the follower is antisemite it has what so ever linked to Islam, if so please merge to Muslim and antisemitism.--Towaru 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I never thought about that. I agree that this article is biased and goes against WP:NPOV because it presupposes that Islam contains elements of antisemitism which may be discussed. It should be moved to Muslims and antisemitism, or Islam and antisemitism allegations. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of Christianity and antisemitism?Proabivouac 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That should be moved as well, along with any "Religion" and antisemitism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The quran clearly contains some passages which are clearly antisemitic, and they are mentioned in the article. Besides, we already have Arabs and antisemitism.--Sefringle 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with that statement, Sefringle. The Qur'an has statements that can be interpreted as antisemitic, but they can also be - and are - interpreted in other ways too. We should not be referring directly to the Qur'an, because it is a primary source, but instead reflecting what present-day scholars are saying. Not many of them think that Islam has any intrinsic relationship with antisemitism. It's the same for Christianity. Most writers point out the differences between the belief system of a religion and the actions of its followers are different times in the past. The titles of these articles are unsatisfactory as they lead into what social scientists call the "essentialist fallacy" - that there is a timeless Islam or timeless Christianity that will always be the same, cannot change. Followers of the religions may also fall into the same fallacy, but in fact the most thoughtful ones do not, and in any case the encyclopedia is pursuing enquiry, not belief. Itsmejudith 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps you are right to some extent. But I think there is reason enough to believe these statements in the quran are antisemitic. I find it quite ironic how the muslim scholars seem to find Islam to be tolerant while the antisemitism scholars seem to find it to be intolerent. Everyone seems to be promoting their own bias. It forces everyone to make their own judgements as to what the qur'an really is. That is probably why neither arguement can be dismissed as incorrect and why we will probably not reach consensus over which one of us is correct.--Sefringle 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, there is a differnce between Muslims and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism. The former can document non-Arab Muslims. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, I oppose, because that would mean the qur'an section and the part about jews being apes and pigs would suddenly become irrelevant. I like the current title better.--Sefringle 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That can be a subsection in the Quran article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The quran article is about the history of the qur'an, not the ethics of the qur'an. It would kind of be irrelevant there. It would be better here, under the current title.--Sefringle 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, can we take web as a source for this? for example: http://www.jews-for-allah.org/ , i think i know what went wrong here, perhaps.--Towaru 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Certianly not that site. It is extremist in many ways, and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. It is not a scholarly source for anything related to either Islam or antisemitism. The only place it might be acceptable is Criticism of Judaism, and even there, it may be considered too extremist to be included.--Sefringle 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the site seems to reference its sources. Thus information from the site can be used, if the site references reliable sources.Bless sins 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For example consider the following link [25]. Its written by a professor whose credentials are in the relevent field.Bless sins 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that particular article is relevant to this topic. However, most of the material on that site is extremist, unreferenced, antisemitic, and racist against Jews and extermely pro-Islam (hense the name "Jews-for-Allah").--Sefringle 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said the above link was relevent to this article, however, it is a scholarly source definetly relvent to something like History of the Jews under Muslim rule etc.Bless sins

Please do not continue this fruitless discussion. A proposal to move this page elsewhere, somewhere, anywhere has already been made above and it didn't pass. Beit Or 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

how about this - i found new source, http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/32terrorism_antisemitism_soc06.php . its clear Islam is not anti-semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towaru (talk • contribs) 08:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

No, its not clear. I think the history speaks for itself. However wikipedia is not a forum, so I am not going to continue this discussion.--Sefringle 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

^^^^original research. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all explained in the article, with citations provided.--Sefringle 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I must have not made myself clear. The article "Islam and antiesmitism" (which is what we are discussing) is sourced. The evidence is sourced in the article.--Sefringle 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request edit

Resolved

 – Done

Can "Panorama" in the BBC section be wikilinked to Panorama (TV series)? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. In the future, if you use the {{editprotected}} tag, it flags the page for admins. -- Avi 02:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Major overhaul, or deletion?

In its current incarnation, this article is one of the most sophomoric, bigoted, and badly written in all of Wikipedia's Middle-East-related articles, and that's saying something. Two major forms of overhaul are necessary. The first is to reframe the subject as a controversial one, which obviously it is. As it stands now, it presents highly contentious claims as fact. It reads, moreover, like a mediocre high-school student's attempt at essay writing:

Islam and antisemitism considers antisemitism among Muslims; in the Qu'ran; in Islamic history; and in the modern world. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are important issues in contemporary Middle East politics and the relations of the state of Israel with its neighbors in the region.

Instead of defining its topic and sketching its purview, it tells you what it "considers" and then tells you it's "important." Very amateurish stuff.

The next thing that will need to be overhauled is the use of sources. Some are solid, but there is a good deal of rank propaganda here presented as if it were encyclopedic. It is one thing to quote lobby groups like MEMRI to give balance, or to limn the parameters of a debate, but this article relies upon them as primary sources for factual claims. Last month I cleaned up some of the plagiarism that infected the page, but a good deal remains to be done. Finally, what decent source material is here will need to be sifted through more intelligently than has been done. Much of it hasn't been "read" in any serious sense of the word; rather it's just been mined for lurid quotations. On the whole, despite having a serious subject worthy of serious treatment, this article reads like the breathless pamphlet-prose of some basement-operated hate group; it is about as far from encyclopedic in tone and content as is imaginable.--G-Dett 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some changes need to occur. There is just too much edit warring over the current version.--Sefringle 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That MEMRI is a lobby group is just your personal opinion, G-Dett. You may have failed to notice that MEMRI only translates what is broadcast in the Muslim world. There are no known instances of it forging any translation. Beit Or 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out Yusuf_Qardawi#Fatwa_controversy_with_MEMRI. Ofcourse MEMRI denied the whole thing. Also check out Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Controversy for why MEMRI is completely biased. In anycase can you show how MEMRI's staff our reliable sources?Bless sins 22:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Beit Or, my opinion is that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, committed to the calculated and coordinated dissemination of high-profile disinformation in a sustained campaign to engineer policies that otherwise wouldn't enjoy much public support. That it's a "lobby group," on the other hand, is a neutral and factual description; as such it certainly has its equivalents on the other side (CAIR, MPAC, the ADC, and so on). Bless sins, MEMRI's doctoring of a videotape and transcript of a Norman Finkelstein interview on Arab television is also of interest.--G-Dett 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. It is probably just his claim after becomming embarassed after seeing what he said. Abu Usamah did a similar thing after being caught red handed preaching terrorism.--Sefringle 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you mean we should take Finkelstein's own biases into account, and not just say "MEMRI's lying – Finkelstein said so," then yes, of course you're right. But the side-by-side videos (the original Arab broadcast vs MEMRI's edited version) show pretty conclusive evidence of MEMRI's tampering. They wished to present Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier, so they doctored the video and the interview transcript to make it appear that he was one. Pretty open-and-shut, no? If I'm missing something here, tell me.--G-Dett 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

yes. The citations.--Sefringle 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bear with me if I'm a little slow. The citations?--G-Dett 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

yes. The evidence that MEMRI "distorted" Finkelstein's speech(es).--Sefringle 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "doctored" to "distorted"; it's stronger and leaves no question of intention. The evidence for it is a) the two side-by-side videos (and interview transcripts): one is the unedited original transmission, in which Finkelstein stresses repeatedly that no rational person questions that the Nazi Holocaust murdered 5-6 million Jews; and the version edited by MEMRI, in which each of those affirmations has been deleted; and b) the MEMRI press release,[26] which was carefully phrased to suggest that Finkelstein questions the fact of the Nazi Holocaust. I do not understand how the conclusiveness of this evidence could be questioned.

In any event, Beit Or is right that our individual opinions of MEMRI are neither here nor there, and we don't need to agree. The point is that lobby groups – and I want to be very clear that I include in this category not only MEMRI and the ADL but also the ADC, MPAC, CAIR, et al – should not be our sources for basic facts.--G-Dett 23:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the links for part A? I'd like to see the videos and make my own judgements, as I haven't actually viewed them yet.--Sefringle 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Both are available on the page I first linked to, here: [27].--G-Dett 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I think this is the last resort. Can someone please initiate it. --Aminz 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets discuss your changes first. Information related to how the quran "respects" jews is not relevant to Islam and antisemitsim. Second, your recently added version removed sources--Sefringle 21:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the first quote from Jerome Chanes. it is. I have seen other scholars also say it. The book has the title "Antisemitism."- Anyways. I think we should bring this to mediation. --Aminz 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

can we remove the "most scholars believe" from Cohan's quote. It is his opinion. Cohan is not "most scholars"--Sefringle 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen says "Most believe"; he is not saying his own belief but the view of majority(which includes lewis and Cahen).Also please note that Cohen wrote this in "The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies," --Aminz 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also refering to these parts:

Khaleel Mohammed writes that many verses [8] in the Quran respect Jews, and tell them that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. The Qur’an (5:54) also refers to the Torah as a "book of light". He further emphasizes that any attempt to demonize Jews has absolutely no basis in the Quran.[9]

Professor Ali S. Asani suggests that the Quran endorses the establishment of religiously and culturally plural societies and this endorsement has affected the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim lands throughout history. He cites the endorsement of pluralistic ethos to explain why violent forms of anti-Semitism generated in medieval and modern Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, never occurred in regions under Muslim rule.[10]The Qur'an states that Jews betrayed the teaching of their prophet Moses, and that if they were to uphold the teaching of Moses that they would be a saved nation.[citation needed]

How the quran "respects" jews is irrelevant.--Sefringle 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Khaleel Muhammad was saying these in relation with antisemtism in this article [28] (Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism), so it is relevant. --Aminz 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that context needs to be made. It is still very POV pushing, and isn't relly related to antisemitism--Sefringle 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Jerome Chanes what exactly is his scholarship, and how is he notable?--Sefringle 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I need to run now. But even if this scholar fails, I can supply other sources. --Aminz 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He is Program Director of the National Foundation of Jewish Culture, is also on the adjunct faculty of Yeshiva University's Wurzweiler School of Social Work. --Aminz 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Khaleel Mohammed"'s opinions have been on this article for months (maybe even a year). Infact, Jayjg him/herself inserted him. The article that sites him is specifically about antisemitism (and its relation to the Quran). Finally, can you define "POV pushing" (by pointing to the relvent Wiki policy)? I think there is a lot that going on here.Bless sins 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is irrelevant is the comments that say the quran respects Jews. This article is titled "Islam and antisemitism", and thus is about the relationship between Islam and Antisemisism, not Islam and the Jews. Every sentence of an article that may be relevant is not necessarily relevant. This is one of them. --Sefringle 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Islam and antisemitism" doesn't necessarily imply a positive relationship. That is to say, it doesn't necessarily say that Islam encourages antiSemitism. Infact, there are a lot of scholars that believe that Islam does not provide any ground for antisemitic views.

However, I think I understand what you are saying. It would help if we mentioned that Khaleel Muhammad is making these statements in response to allegations of antisemitism against Islam. Bless sins 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we also need to include the statements that were made that caused the response to try to balance out the POV.--Sefringle 02:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert to the earlier section becasue these recent changes are way too overwhelming to discuss all at once, and because they are very one sided and POV. If you'd like to make changes, please discuss them one at a time first.--Sefringle 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The other version of the article is very POV against Islam. --Aminz 02:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But the newer version is very POV pro islam, and is very offensive in my opinion. It is similar to holocaust denial, because it is denial of a prejudice. I think we can reach some compromise, but lets discuss them section by section first before re- adding.--Sefringle 03:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, definiton of offensive is two-sided. False accusations are also offensive. --Aminz 05:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back on the topic of how to fix/improve this article?--Sefringle 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, we talked about this before. You think whatever kind of persecution of Jews is antisemitism and you don't accept that if a persecution is not specifically directed at Jews, it is not antisemitism. As such, you don't accept for example The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion when it says: "There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." There is no more point to discuss this if we can not agree on that point. I will probably request for a mediation. That seems to be the final resort. --Aminz 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not except that claim that antisemitism in the muslim world was rare. I do' however think that persecution of Jews, becasue they are Jews is antisemitism. If "because they are Jews" includes other religions, it is still antisemitism. Scholars consider the Reconquista to be antisemitic, however by your definition, it wouldn't be.--Sefringle 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no point of arguing what is antisemitism, and what is not. If a reliable source says its antisemitism, it is, and if a reliable source says it isn't, then it isn't. If there is a contradiction, we present both sources and attribute them.Bless sins 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Sefringle, wikipedia does not limit the speed at which we can improve it/add content. Thus if I have added a large amount of content in a short time, I have not violated any rules. If you, however, see that some content is OR, or not sufficiently sourced, then please bring it up. But to revert me entirely is wrong.Bless sins 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted material that you removed, and moved around some of your sourced edits to where they are more relevant. I think this version is less POV.--Sefringle 18:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tags without showing on talk how the sources are legitimate. Hte sources I have tagged don't at all mention "antisemitism", therefore qualify as WP:OR. (Ask User:Jayjg if you don't believe me).Bless sins 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

you placed tags next to sourced material. They do mention material that discusses discrimination against Jews, which is antisemitism.--Sefringle 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sefringle, but me and Jayjg went over this (probably) close to 50 times. If a source doesn't mention antisemitism, then it is OR to use it (in an article about antisemitism). According to WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F "any facts...must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." (the emphasis is added by WP, not me). You should also take a look at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.

Bless sins 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1

Restore: "According to Mark Cohen in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")." Reason: The only reliable source in the lead, and perhaps the most reliable source in the article. This also gives an overview of Muslim antisemitism in history, and where it really came from.Bless sins 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This gives the opinion of two scholars. It is not the opinion of all scholars of antisemitism. This is too POV pushing for the lead. Secondly, the arguement about this being the only reliable source in the lead is invalid, since many articles, including featured articles (DNA, Prostitution in the People's Republic of China, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Battle of Badr etc.) don't have sources in the lead, and the lead is only supposed to be a summary; if I am wrong, please show me where. Instead of adding bias content to the lead to add sources, add sources to what is already in the lead. Third, Mark Cohen is not "most scholars." He speaks his own opinion. He does not have the right to speak for all scholars. And including "Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies" is just advertisement.--Sefringle 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Cohen is a reliable source. Thus if he says "most scholars believe..." we write (attributing it to him ofcourse). It is not you job to question reliable scholars. In fact, Mark Cohen is probably the most reliable source in this article, since his views were published by Oxford University Press, of a VERY prestigious university.Bless sins 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is his opinion. He has no right to speak for everyone. He can speak for himself only. You are pushing your POV here when you say "Mark Cohen is probably the most reliable source in this article."--Sefringle 03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen is a recognized scholar, and his views are published by very prestigious university presses. Can you find me a source in this article (other than Bernard Lewis) who is more scholarly?Bless sins 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to include Cohen's statement in the header because he provides us with information as to when did antisemitism enter Islam, and what were the sources of this antisemitism.Bless sins 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen's statement is his own POV, and it contradicts the views of other scholars. We don't insert one specific POV in the lead, that's a violation of NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is published/backed by the Oxford University Press. The view is also shared by Lewis. There is none else in this article that is more scholarly than those two. Feel free to add other equally scholarly views. But stop removing Cohen.Bless sins 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxford University Press doesn't "back" his statements, they just published it. Lewis actually has a different view. Cohen isn't being removed, he's just being put with the rest of the scholars; putting only Cohen's view in the intro violates WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They would not have published it if he wrote something ridiculous. WP:NPOV says "significant published points of view are to be presented". You are free to add other significant views to the intro.Bless sins 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and they are presented, in the article, but that doesn't mean we quote one specific view in the lead, or, indeed, any specific views. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points... ". Thus we should summarize the important points made with regards to the relatiohsip between Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And, in fact, the lead does exactly that. Placing a quote from Cohen in the lead would violate both WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen doesn't say his own POV, he says that most scholar think that way and has written that in a reputable source. --Aminz 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's Cohen's POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Historians relate the facts accurately (and also make professional interpretations of those facts). Those interpretation parts are their POV but the first part (relating facts) are not their POV. --Aminz 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, can you please back up your claim of "Lewis actually has a different view."? --Aminz 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "facts" of history are often in dispute, and a number of historians (including those mentioned on this page) disagree with Cohen's views regarding Islam and antisemitism. Regarding Lewis, he says that indeed Muslims treated Jews with contempt, were abusive towards them, even persecuted them; he just doesn't like to call this "antisemitism". That's not what Cohen says. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you can not disprove the statement that "Most scholars think ..." by quoting a number of historians disagree with it (you can only disprove "All scholars think ..." by doing that).

Regarding Lewis, you said that it contradicts Cohen. Please source your statement. Further, Lewis also says that the status of dhimmi in premodern times was accepted with gratitude by the Jews. It is all a matter of expectations, standards and perspectives. But this is an aside issue, please source your above mentioned statement. --Aminz 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've presented the contradictions between Cohen's view and Lewis' view. Do you have any comments related to specific article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course these are all relevant to the content dispute. If you've made a claim which was irrelevant to the content then you have diverged from the discussion.

The content dispute in this section is clearly about Cohen statement. The intro should provide the overview of the general views about Antisemitism in Muslim lands. --Aminz 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

+ Cohen is in the position to tell us the "fact" about the view of most scholars in his field. He is not saying his interpretation about that. --Aminz 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen is only in a position to give his POV about other scholars; he's not the god of Islam and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will bring this to the talk page of WP:Attribution. --Aminz 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2

Restore: "In response to allegations of antisemitism against the Quran, Khaleel Mohammed points out numerous verses of the Quran that respect Jews. He also points out that the Qur'an entitles Jews to the kingdom of heaven, and calls the Torah a "book of light" (^{[Quran 5:44]}). He further emphasizes that any attempt to demonize Jews has absolutely no basis in the Quran. " Reason: Both Ye'or and Spencer are not reliable, there fore we can't use them as sources for anything. Mohammad, however, is a professor of religious studies at a university. Thus, he is reliable.Bless sins 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or most certianly is reliable on the topic of antisemitism, since she is recognized as an expert and historian by both universities [29][30] and the U.S congress [31] and other scholarly sources [32]. But if you'd rather not include her views, we can remove the paragraph entirely. I have removed Spencer's response, but I added the actual context in which Mohammad's comments were made.--Sefringle 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the above soruces call Ye'or "an expert" on Islam and antisemitism. But perhaps you can clear that up for me. Your first link shows that Ye'or's views have been criticized by David Gil, professor and director of the Center for Social Change at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management.Bless sins 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpriting the first source, since there is only one small paragraph about criticism. My point whth these sources is that her views are scholarly enough for inclusion, since they are recognized by academics.--Sefringle 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is only a small paragraph (in the source you provided). I can find several other articles that criticize Ye'or. The point is that none of your sources say something along the lines of "Ye'or is an expert on Islam".Bless sins 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bat Yeor is at least as much of an expert on antisemitism as Mohammed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources that show she is? Khaleel Mohammad can be considered an expert because he is a professor in religious studies.Bless sins 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were all in a debate together, weren't they? Who was Mohammed debating with, then, no-one? Anyway, I removed that paragraph, it added nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, and you can't just censor sources.Bless sins 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Suddenly it's a reliable source? The same source had the views of Bat Yeor, Spencer, and Mohammed, because they were all on the panel. Anyway, the Mohammed stuff is still in there, I just took out the whole paragraph with Bat Yeor and Spencer, it wasn't helpful. Please don't make uncivil accusations of "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By source I meant the actual people. Yes Khaleel Mohammed is reliable. No Ye'or/Spencer are not reliable. "Anyway, the Mohammed stuff is still in there". I don't see it there.Bless sins 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If they're all in a debate together, then they can all be quoted. In any event, look for footnote 19. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that's an exmple of how you are using the source in order to advance the view that Muslims are antisemitic, but removing the same source when it suggests something contrary to that view. I am quoting Khaleel Mohammad's opinions on certain verses of the Quran, I don't see how that doesn't add anything to the article.Bless sins 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go into detail, feel free to add the whole discussion back. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Participating in a debate doesn't give reliability to Spencer. Here is how Khaleel Mohammed talks about his debate: "I have been bombarded with several queries regarding my "discussion" on frontpagemag.com, and the subsequent inimical webpostings on Jihadwatch etc...I consider myself a scholar and therefore prefer to engage in discussion where facts, rather than fictions and prejudgments are presented... There are certain stereotypes that extremists try to sell to the public..."

If you think that Spencer is a reliable source[33], I would be more than happy to discuss this on a separate page (Spencer's talk page, or WP:RS talk page - I'd rather WP:RS talk page because more editors have the page on their watchlist). --Aminz 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed's statement is opaque. In any event, I was more concerned with the handwaving away of Bat Yeor. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You said Spencer and Bat Ye'or are notable because they debated with Mohammed. I am now focused on that argument of yours that if X debates with Y, Y will become as reliable as X. If you would like to establish their reliability in another way, that's a different story. --Aminz 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating society. Do you have any comments that are related to specific article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If an argument is irrelevant to the content dispute, please don't make it in the first place.--Aminz 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, do you have any comments that are related to specific article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 3

Moved the comments of Professor Ali S. Asani and Jerome Chanes back. Reason: They are not rebuttals to anything, but provide an overview of the relationship between Muslim scriptures and antisemitism. The other comments, which are more specific in nature, should be moved down.Bless sins 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they provide no overview. They provide a POV contrary to that of Leon Poliakov, Walter Laqueur, and Jane Gerber. It most certianly is mentioned like a rebuddle, since it contradicts what the other antisemitism scholars say.--Sefringle 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Niether is rebutting Poliakov, Lacquer or Gerber. Also, both Asani and Chanes provide general reasons, while Gerber etc. go into specifics. It doesn't make sense to start a section with specifics.Bless sins 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It certianly doesn't make sense to begin with a rebuddle or a view that denys the concept of Islamic antisemitism. That is just POV. I personally think they shouldn't be included at all, so I think putting them at the bottom is a fair compromise, especially since they are a rebuddle to Poliakov, Lacquer or Gerber's views. Poliakov, Lacquer or Gerber's views should go first because they are most relevant to the section, and they provide an actual arguement.--Sefringle 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You shoudl go read the original sources. Neither Chanes nor Asani is making a rebuttal. They are just giving an overview of the relationship between antisemitism and the Quran. Poliakov, Gerber, and Lacquer, on the other hand, are making specific arguments regarding certain verses of the Quran (so is Khaleel Muhammad). Thus their views belong below that.Bless sins 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have inserted Asani and Chanes as a rebuttal to Polakiev, Laqueur, and Gerber, because they contradict what the latter say. Feel free to insert rebuttals afterwards. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you go and read the sources for yourself before making judgments? Neither Chanes nor Asani is making a rebuttal. Niether of them makes any mention of Gerber or anyone else making allegations.Bless sins 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The points you have cherry-picked from their writings are intended as a rebuttal of Polakiev et al. That's why you inserted them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse, because you somehow magically know my "intentions". If I have cherry picked "points", then you are free to provide the context. Please stay on topic. Refer to Chanes and Asani, when making your argument, not me.Bless sins 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have. The points Chanes and Asani make are in the article. Next? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that Asani and Chanes are not making rebuttals to specific arguments, rather providing an overview of the Quran's realtionship with antisemitism.Bless sins

Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that is not a wikipedia policy.Please give me direct answer, as you so far haven't.Bless sins 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you prefer to ask me "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"? Don't ask leading questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Again, you are getting off topic. I really don't have any interest in your wife, or the way questions are asked.

I initially put forth an arugment that Chanes and Asani should mentioned initially, since they are not rebutting anyone, but providing a general relationship between the Quran and antisemitism. Please address this argument in a straightforward maner.Bless sins 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There arguments are more general and less informative. So? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The arguments are not less imformative (I never said that), rahter less specific with respect to any verse in particular. "So?" they belong at the top of the section rather than at the bottom.Bless sins 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do less specific arguments belong at the top, rather than the bottom? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, "So?" is not exactly civil. And in this case the "So?" is pretty obvious when we are talking about a NPOV encyclopedia. Bless sins is absolutely right here. Begin with the uncontroversial, establish the facts agreed by everyone. Only then move onto the controversy and give proper weight to both sides. Itsmejudith 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "facts" are not "agreed" by everyone. Bless sins has found a couple of sources that make rather ridiculous (and fairly vague) claims that the Qur'an contains no theological antisemitism, and that the Holocaust could never have happened in Muslim countries. Idiotic claims, both of them. The Qur'an clearly contains verses condemning Jews, for much the same reason that the New Testament does; Jews practiced a competing religion that didn't accept the claims of Christianity or Islam. Chanes' arguments are also factually incorrect; the Qur'an contains a number of stories that contradict the stories of the Hebrew Bible. In any event, people will use any holy book for whatever purpose they want, taking the verses they prefer and ignoring the ones they don't. Bless sins wants to place this uninformative mess before rather compelling statements that specific verses in the Qur'an are indeed anti-Jewish. How that would suddenly make the section "NPOV" is a mystery. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not your place to call scholars "idiotic". It is "uniformative mess" because it doesn't suit your POV (as you have just admitted). You indeed want the article to say that "specific verses in the Qur'an are indeed anti-Jewish". Bless sins 22:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I said the arguments were idiotic, as they plainly are, not the scholars. Also, the article is an uninformative mess mostly because it is very poorly written, and because of the constant attempts to re-write it as an apologia for Islam rather than an article about antisemitism; please don't invent uncivil straw man arguments for me, or truncate my quotes so that they give a false impression. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 4

I made the trends section "alleged" because 1. WP:NOT#CBALL, and 2. nobody can predict the future and these seem to be one- scholar opinions.--Sefringle 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to that argument we'll have to move this article to "Allegations of antisemitism against Islam", since we have contradicting views.Bless sins 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Bernard Lewis's opinions are VERY scholarly, you have no right to dismiss them (unless through other more scholarly opinions).Bless sins 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal ball predictions shouldn't be treated seriously; they probably don't even belong in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CBALL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." I have referenced my discussion to proper scholars. WP says that my edits are therefore "appropriate".Bless sins 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just a throwaway opinion, without any discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "throwyaway" opinion. In anycase, where does WP say that "throwaway opinion" are not be not included on wikipedia.Bless sins 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Does he back it up with any argument, statistics, discussion? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes he does. He has written an entire book on the topic (I think googlebooks will give you a limited preview). If, after reading the material, you feel I have not given enough context, then feel free to add it.Bless sins 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I'll delete it, because there's no real context given, and it's not properly cited. It looks like dubious original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"...it's not properly cited." You mean I forgot to mention the author? Or did I not specify the date of the publication? Bless sins 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 5

According to WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F "any facts...must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." (the emphasis is added by WP, not me). You should also take a look at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.

There are many sources that may be OR, per the WP policy quoted above. Please show how the following sources are in relation to both "Islam" and "antisemitism". Make the response directly under the source.Bless sins 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1.Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (pdf), Freedom House, May 2006, pp.24-25.

Read pages 13 and 14 of the document. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice, that the quotes currently in the article are not from pages 13-14. Pages 13-14, which do talk about antisemitism, say nothing about the Quran, except that it teaches tolerance [of Judaism].Bless sins 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The summary makes clear that they selectively cite portions of the Quran and hadith teaching violence against Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm as far as I'm concerned freedom house has been used to point out some apes and pigs quotes. Where does the summary suggest that Saudi textbooks calling Jews apes and pigs is antisemitism?Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the paper. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have. The pages you've pointed out say only positive things about the Quran, and don't mention apes and pigs at all.Bless sins 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Read them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read pages 13-14 several times. It's time you quoted what exactly you are talking about.Bless sins 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

2. "Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar Calls for Jihad and States Jews ‘are the Descendants of Apes and Pigs’", Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1217, Antisemitism Documentation Project, July 28, 2006. Accessed March 5, 2006.

Antisemitism Documentation Project, Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment talking about the Koran. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about #2. In the following link, I did not even find the word antisemitism, much less the accusation that the Syrian minister is making the antisemitic comments. Can you also provide me with the name of the author of this article, and how he/she is a reliable source in Islam and/or antisemitism.Bless sins 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the title of the Page. The area the report is in is the "Antisemitism Documentation Project". You don't need to be an expert in Islam to translate an Arabic Television appearance. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but where is the allegation that his statements are antisemitic. Also, why are you not providing me with the author and his/her credentials? Clearly all the statements on the page are not antisemitic, because the page includes a report about "sexual organs, mainly AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and so on...fornication, homosexuality, and all the sexual deviation it entails", which has nothing to do with antisemitism.Bless sins 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's included in a series of reports documenting antisemitism. He's calling Jews apes and pigs. At some point WP:POINT should stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he's calling the Jews, where is the allegation of antisemitism? (Also, who is the author, and what makes him/her reliable). WP:POINT? Do explain.Bless sins 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is the author. It's an organization. The allegation of antisemitism is in the title of the page. WP:POINT should stop at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but someone must have made the judgment that Al-Sattar's statements are antisemitic. I want to know if that someone is relaible neough a source to make that call. Also, the article contains Al-Sattar's views on "sexual organs, mainly AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and so on...fornication, homosexuality, and all the sexual deviation it entails". Is that an example of antisemitism as well?Bless sins 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific as to how I'm violating WP:POINT.Bless sins 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm done wasting time on this. You've been answered, and I don't have to repeat myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"No, I'm done wasting time on this". If you edit on wikipedia, you will definetly have to spend time. You have refused to provide me with the author, his/her credentials etc. Because Al-Sattar is a living person, I'm removing the source per WP:BLP (as the author and reliability is unknown). Not to mention that it is OR as explained above.Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See previous statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have you mentioned nay author or why he/she is relaible. Also, the page seems to be really ambiguous. Using ambiguous and information for whcih the author is unkown seems to be a violation of BLP, and OR.Bless sins 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is the author. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a name of a person? Someone must have written this. In any case show how the author is a reliable source. You should also show what these comments have to do with Islam (eg. is Sattar an Islamic scholar?). Also explain whether Al-Sattar's other comments (on homosexuality), on the same page, are anti-semitism or not.Bless sins 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3. PEW Globel Attitudes Report

"Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world." Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We're talking of "antisemitism" here.Bless sins 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and "Anti-Jewish sentiment"=Antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. If that was so, the author would have used the word "antisemitism". Please provide a source that specifically is in relation to the topic of antisemitism.Bless sins 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes really. Antisemitism has synonyms, including judeophobia, anti-Jewish sentiment, etc. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] This line of questioning has also reached the WP:POINT stage. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT does not prevent me from removing OR, I don't knwo why you keep invoking it. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position on why you can't use the definition of something to make a point (in the case of the link above, the defintion of plagiarism).

Synonyms are not OR. I'm invoking WP:POINT because if you do enough of it it will get you blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Using definitions to advance a psotion is definetly OR, as shown by the link I psoted above. You are basically using the argument: if A and B, then C. Wikipedia doesn't allow that.Bless sins 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, synonyms are simply synonyms, not arguments. It's not OR to claim that a survey of opinions about cars is the same as a survey of opinions about automobiles. I won't be going over this any more either. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically forbids using definitions (synonyms are a type of definition) to advance arguments. If you don't want to go voer this, fine - don't insert this in either.Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms are not a "type of definition". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. In any case, "anti-jewish sentiment" carries much less wieght than "antisemitism". Also, if indeed the statistics show antisemitism, then you will have no trouble in finding a source that actually says "antisemitism".Bless sins 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence for your claim that "anti-jewish sentiment" carries much less wieght than "antisemitism" Please do so in light of the fact that I provided 7 reliable sources that use them interchangeably. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the source uses "anti-jewish sentiment" and not "antisemitism". Whether it carries more weight or less is not the point. Also, please explain how the authors of "PEW Globel Attitudes Report" are RS on "Islam and antisemitism".Bless sins 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Barzilay, I., Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): His Life, Works and Times, p. XXIV (1997)

More context please. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?Bless sins 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your specific question? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "question" is stated on the top of this section, directly under "Edit 5".Bless sins 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source then, and decided it is not relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, the burden is on you to do show how this is related to antisemitism. As far as I have researched into this, I have not found any claims of antisemitism.Bless sins 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How far have you "researched" this? Have you read the source material? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get off topic. The question is whether the source above is in relation to the topic of Islam and antisemitism. The question is not whether Bless_sins has researched the book.Bless sins 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe it's not. Go get the book if you think there is a problem with the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The source does not specifically mention antisemitism. Please show me where it does (if it does at all).Bless sins 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it doesn't; did you read it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I have been repeating myself: the burden is not on me to check whether this source talks about antisemitism, that burden is on you, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, once a source is provided, the burden is on you to prove it is incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the policy. The burden is always on the user "who adds or restores material". That will be you (or possible someone else) when I remove the source.Bless sins 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy only says that information must be cited by a reliable source. That has been done. If you feel the source is unreliable in some way, please explain why. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a reliable source hasn't been provided, (because OR isn't RS). The source is not about antisemitism. It also has nothing to with Islam. It is apparently about a 17th century doctor/scientist/rabbi by the name of "Yashar of Candia" who wanders between Europe and Middle East for much of his life. He writes about medicine, commits plagiarism and conducts philosophical studies of great importance. There is no reason anyone should beleive that this source is about Islam and antisemitism, unless you provide us with one.Bless sins 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Gilbert, Martin. Dearest Auntie Fori. The Story of the Jewish People. HarperCollins, 2002, pp. 179-182.

More context please. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about this source, or should I remove it?Bless sins 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I need more context; what are you asking? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The same as I'm asking above, for all other sources. I have stated aboe "Please show how the following sources are in relation to both "Islam" and "antisemitism". Make the response directly under the source".Bless sins 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put the source in. Read it, or ask the person who put it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, atleast you won't be restoring the source when I remove it.Bless sins 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You've presented no rationale for removing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

6. [41]

7. "Mutation of Israelites", Internet Sacred Text Archive. (retrieved May 3, 2006)

8. "Hizbullah Al-Manar TV’s Children's Claymation Special: Jews Turn Into Apes & Pigs, are Annihilated & Cast into the Sea",, Middle East Media Research Institute, December 16, 2005. (retrieved May 3, 2006)

9. Solnick, Aluma. "Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals", Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Report - No. 11, November 1, 2002. Accessed March 5, 2006.

10. Maimonides, ‘’Epistle to the Jews of Yemen”, translated in Stillman (1979), pp. 241–242

11. Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands,, 1979, pp. 59, 284.

12. Jews In The Koran And Early Islamic Traditions by Dr. Leah Kinberg. Lecture delivered in May 2003, Monash University, Melbourne

13. Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem. London. p. 51

14. Tom Gross, Living in a Bubble: The BBC’s very own Mideast foreign policy., National Review, June 18, 2004.

15. [42]

I know this is about antisemitism, but please show how the author, Steve Stalinsky, is a relaible source.Bless sins 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

16. Jews In The Koran And Early Islamic Traditions by Dr. Leah Kinberg. Lecture delivered in May 2003, Monash University, Melbourne