Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 1

message: :It seems this section in iteslf is grown into another article. What is the point of having a parallel/self/contradictory article? IMHO, it is full of errors, non-NPOV propaganda, excuses and avoids even the word dhimmi:
Islam is similar to Judaism, in that both see themselves as both spiritual descendants of Abraham and followers of the same prophets. Islamic scholars are quick to point out that Islam encourages toleration and respect for Jews, as well as Christians, as both are considered "People of the Book", meaning they share common scriptures and prophets. Many people have produced hadith concerning Muhammad that showed how he did business with the Jewish tribes of his city and how he ordered Muslims to share food with their Jewish neighbors.
Historically there has not been as much anti-Semitism in Muslim lands as in Christian lands, up until the Twentieth century. While many Jews were persecuted in Europe, they enjoyed relative political and religious freedom in Islamic societies. After helping the Muslims conquer Spain, they helped the Muslims govern the country throughout the Middle Ages (and parts remained under Muslim control until the completion of the Reconquista in 1492); during that time, Jewish citizens had rights nearly equal to those of American citizens today. Jewish historians refer to that time period as "The Golden Age of Judaism", which ended in 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella gave them May, June, and July to leave Spain permanently.  The Catholic Monarchs declaired this to be due to their effect on the religious faith of the Marranos and Jews who had converted to Christianity.
Jews, and their Rabbis, gained prominence in the courts of Baghdad, Cairo, and Istanbul, performing the duties of palace physicians, finance officers, and even government ministers known as "viziers.' As a minority, Jews exempt from Islamic law (Sharia), and the governments allowed them a degree of self-rule by appointing Jewish leaders to implement Jewish law for their communities. Important synagogues dot the major cities of the Middle East, and relations between Muslims and Jews have been relatively calm for over a thousand years.
Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased greatly in the twentieth century. This can be traced to various sources; some of it can be traced to long-held prejudices and historical misunderstandings. The main reason for the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East in the past fifty years may be due to the poor state of relations between Israel, a Jewish-majority state, and the isolation enforced by the  neighboring Arab countries. Criticism of Israeli policy has resulted in a marked rise in distrust of Jews and anti-Semitism at the popular level.
←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_and_Islam]]

message: Some Islamists claim Kemal Atatürk was a secret Jew.  Do Muslim anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Caliphate-destroyers" in the same way that Christian anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Christ killers"? GCarty 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: etc. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with Christian anti-semitism

message: The text now reads "After Muhammad's efforts to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed[citation needed]..."
I'm quite curious as to what may be used as evidence to substantiate this claim. 71.141.168.28 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher. A citation is needed for the "After Muhammad's efforts to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed[citation needed]..." quote to remain. I demanded a citation more than a moth ago. If you can find a citation, great; put up the quote (with the source). But this quote can no longer remain.Bless sins 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference provided. Pecher Talk 13:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The refernce you provided is: Haddad, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 97, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1977), pp. 519-530 . Firstly who is this Haddad?? What qualifies him/her to be an expert on the Seerah. How does he/she (Haddad) know when verses were revealed? Pls. provide some qualifications, or the citation will be removed.Bless sins 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Pecher, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question above.Bless sins 10:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep waiting, you won't get any. If you dispute a reference, it is your responsibility to provide arguments why the source is unreliable. Pecher Talk 11:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. If you get some unknown writer, how I'm supposed to even find who this guy is, let alone refute his arguments.Bless sins 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

text: The source is a scholarly journal; it's your responsibility to check it. Pecher Talk 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, can you pls. provide me with a first name of this "Haddad" person.Bless sins 09:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Can anybody check this verse? I think there is something wrong with the reference 17:100-104 
"Pharaoh sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharaoh] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]." (Qur'an )
Thanks --Aminz 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A verse 

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

message: p. 41 of Bernard Lewis' book The Jews of Islam has the line "The same perception is reflected in a common oath formula: "[If what I say is not true], may I become a Jew...."
He does NOT say "Throughout the ages" and he does not limit the "oath formula" to Muslims.
If you want a quote on Islam and anti-Semitism, there are plenty in his book. This is not one of them.Javadane 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can't use your own original research to attribute something to Lewis that he hasn't said. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ExactlyJavadane 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Lewis definitely refers to an "oath formula" and in the context it would be appear that had he meant it to be a "Muslim oath formula" he would have added the word. I have no problem with someone finding a Muslim quote that conforms with Lewis' statement and referencing the sentence as "see how it conforms to Lewis' oath formula."  But the repeated presentation of his statement as a "Muslim oath" is fictional and not derived from p. 41 of his work.Javadane 04:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't need to say "Muslim" as it would be repetitious since the whole paragraph was quotes by Muslims.  But if this sentence is singled out without the context showing it is a Muslim oath, it would be appropriate to state it as "a [Muslim] common oath formula..." --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent here appears to interpret the quote to limit the oath formula to Muslims. Lewis states no such limitation and the oath formula is certainly applicable to many statements made by non-Muslims. The brackets do not correct the problem.Javadane 07:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Lewis "Quote" 

message: Pecher inappropriately removed the following under the jsutification of "removal of random website":
"Muslim denunciation of Anti-Semitism
Muslim organizations like the US based Muslim Wake Up! (MWU) have explicitly denounced anti-semitism. Harun Yahya, a modern Muslim writer, has also denounced anti-Semitism as a pagan, and therefore un-Islamic, ideology. "
Firstly, it is not a "random" website, but an active organization. Secondly, the section containes the opinion of a prominent scholar (Harun Yahya), who yeilds influence over many Muslims. Pls. don't remove entire sections without justification on Talk.Bless sins 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's indeed a random anti-Zionist website, which only mascarades as a website against anti-Semitism. That's typical contemporary anti-Semitism, even if not terribly notable. Pecher Talk 18:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but "that's anti-Zionist" is not appropriate reason to remove it. If it's an influential organization, their stament should be included.--Marielleh 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

text: If you can provide evidence that this website is sufficiently notable, we will include into the modern anti-Semitism section. Otherwise, it does not belong ot the article. Pecher Talk 07:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we include a site that denounces anti-Semitism in the "modern anti-Semitism" section? Why do you keep calling that site anti-semitic? Also, the section you removed also contains other examples, suich as that of Harun Yahya. Can you pls. justify your removal of his opinions.Bless sins 10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if the site Muslim Wakeup was anti-Semitic, why would it feature the "Hug a Jew" campaign.Bless sins 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree that the Christian Science Monitor is inherantly anti-semitic, I do agree that that the op ed article that you have citied is inadmissible.  If you were using it as a source for a very specific POV then it might possibly be okay, but it is clear that the writer is very deceptively advocating a particular view, he does it by first explaining how unbias and neutral he is, and then goes on to echo every tired old argument against Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out; I've removed more material from the same unreliable source. Pecher Talk 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the source unreliable?? Rmember what you said just minutes ago:"If you dispute a reference, it is your responsibility to provide arguments why the source is unreliable".Bless sins 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because my source is a scholarly journal, while yours is just a website run by a group of people, among thousands of similar websites. Pecher Talk 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The section obviously does not belong to the article, as the article's title is "Islam and anti-Semitism". Therefore, let's stick to the subject in question. Pecher Talk 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, this section says nothing on Muslim positions on anti-Semitism in Islam. Pecher Talk 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the same token, the section on content within the Quran should be removed, since they're about Jews and not anti-semetism. Amibidhrohi 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But it soes say something about Muslim position on Jews.Bless sins 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says nothing on the Muslim anti-Semitism, though. Pecher Talk 11:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls read the statement again "The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". Also, the section did say something about anti-Semitism. For example it contained the opinion of a popular Muslim scholar (named Harun Yahya)  on anti-Semitism. you however, deleted that.Bless sins 11:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a crypto-antisemitic writer named Harun Yahya? We've already gone through it. Pecher Talk 11:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are purposely responding to some statements of mine and not to others. I'll repeat: the article says clearly that it is about:"The positions of the various branches of Islam on anti-Semitism and Jews". Therefore facts relating to Jews (esp. those demonstrating denunciation of anti-Semitism) should be included. Now pls. don't go change the header of this article to accomodate your POV.172.167.162.23 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Please stop removing the referenced information indicating that the verses refer to Jews, as this is against policy.  Not only do the references show that the verses refer to Jews, but Muslim sources agree. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! I haven't deleted all the various apologetics you've inserted about the verses referring to Jews being transformed into apes as possibly being metaphorical, but please stop removing simple, well-sourced facts upon which all sources agree.  Thanks again. Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You, please stop removing the verses of the Quran, (else stop quoting them). Bless sins 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Jews 

message: The article deals with "Islam and Anti-semetism". For material to not constitute original research here, it must be based on sources that speak of anti-semetism directly. Yes, it's true that Jews have suffered persecution under certain Muslim regimes, however their treatment was not particularly worse than that of other non-muslims minorities of their time. As such, while the regimes in question can (and should) be accused of "muslim supremacy", to label it 'anti-semetism' is incorrect. It's original research when the editor labels an act or statement 'anti-semetism' though his own judgement, and without reference to a third party, published and credible, source. Amibidhrohi 04:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely absurd.  The definition of anti-Semitism (say, compared to "Islamophobia") is well-known.  It's not original research to straightforwardly apply it.Timothy Usher 05:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. The definition of anti-Semitism is NOT CLEAR. Is criticizing Israel anti-Semitism? There's two sides to the issue. Is calling Abraham a Muslim anti-semtism? Once again a harmless statement is turned into a debate. Please back ALL your arguments with sources. You are bascially calling "Islam" (1.2 billion people or 20% of mankind) to be anti-Semitic. This is an exceptional claim, which will reqire exceptional sources. Bless sins 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition of 'anti'-semetism' may be clear, but it's still original research and personal conjecture to apply the label to any person or event. I could, by the same token, label Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer 'islamophobes' and 'bigots' (the latter a pretty well-defined term), but I won't. Wikipedia requires that we use third party sources that make the associations. If a writer's article or book speaks of Islam and Islamophobia, that's totally kosher. An act against a Jewish group or individual or interest may not be labeled as anti-semetic itself. I'm sure finding such third-party statements of credible value wouldn't be hard. It's just that people here are too lazy (or too angry) to find credible sources.Amibidhrohi 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not original research at all. If you have a source (like a dictionary) that defines anti-semitism, then you have another source that states that something meets that definition, you are clearly able to present the material, there exists no conjecture in this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  This might be an interesting issue for RfC then. I suppose describing Daniel Pipes as a bigot is therefore acceptable as well? Or is such commentary only permissible with the word 'anti-semetism'? Amibidhrohi 16:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems pretty likely that an RfC, or more serious measures, will be necessary to fix this problem. I cannot see how editors , of their own judgement and choosing, labeling events and actions 'anti-semetic' can be permissible. Apprently any offense where a Jew was involved amounts to anti-semetism. The Quran saying Abraham was Muslim is anti-semetic? I know the charge of anti-semetism was an effective ad-hominem tool, but I didn't know its effect could be applied to history as well. Amibidhrohi 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

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

message: What the hell does Islam claims mean? - If there is a claim in the qur'an, cite it.  If its from a hadith, cite it.  If its from a Muslim, Cite it.  "Islam" can not "claim" anything, it's texts or proponents can though.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Timothy Usher 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islam claims"

message: This article is in need of sourcing. All quotes need sourcing, all claims need citations. At the moment there are far too few. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: For the record, this article has been advertised to the members of Wikipedia Muslim Guild as an article that needs attention. Pecher Talk 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, to recruit “Muslim participation” against “Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind”,, in a spirit consistent with this (currently blocked) user’s post above.Timothy Usher 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This article has been protected due to this edit war that is happening. When the page is ready to be unprotected, let me know. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No discussion has occurred for the past two weeks. Unless there are objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

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

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

message: :In contemporary Muslim world, there is some institutional anti-Semitism. For instance, Arab countries routinely feature cartoons that caricaturize Jews as "cannibals" or "puppeteers" 
here
Full section here.
Also, Iran has published holocaust-denial cartoons, and Ahmadinezhad has denied the holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel. Regarding anti-Semitism in Pakistan:
In 1996 Pakistani officials continued to condemn the Middle East peace process and to declare that Pakistan would not establish relations with Israel until Israel fully implemented UN resolutions.
The media in Pakistan have provided extensive coverage of the political and personal career of the cricket star Imran Khan. Since Khan's marriage in 1996 to Jemima Goldsmith, daughter of a British industrialist and politician, Sir James Goldsmith, Khan was accused of acting as an agent of the "Jewish lobby." Jemima Khan publicly denied that her parents were Jewish. An Egyptian newpaper distributed in Pakistan accused Khan of receiving large sums of money for his election campaign from the "Jewish lobby." Following complaints from Khan, the deputy editor of the newspaper retracted the story and published an apology.
Since India established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, the Pakistani media have repeatedly referred to the “Zionist threat on our borders,” and occasionally combine both anti-Zionist and antisemitic rhetoric. This is particularly common in the Islamist press, but also occurs in mainstream publications.
Should this be entitled under a new section called "Institutional antisemitism (or antisemitism in the media) in the Muslim world" or what?
Netaji 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where in the Article do I put institutional anti-Semitism in the Muslim world? 

message: :Here is the extract from the article cited:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2001/01/05/stories/040555ra.htm
The Markaz, an Ahle Hadith organisation of Wahabi orientation, was initially very close to Saudi Arabia, but seems to have developed differences with it because of its proximity to Osama and of its contention that even Saudi Arabia does not have an ideal Islamic society. Its criticism of the stationing of the US and other Western troops in Saudi Arabia also contributed to this. It describes the Hindus and Jews, in that order, as the main enemies of Islam and India and Israel as the main enemies of Pakistan. Its Amir, Prof Saeed, is a strong opponent of Western-style democracy.
 
Markaz is the political wing of Lashkar-e-ToibaShiva's Trident 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, This is what you wrote:
The Indian Jewish community has recently suffered from anti-Semitism from Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, who have declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies of Pakistan
Now where does it state that Indian Jewish community has come under attack from the LeT?Omerlives 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said they were attacked. Fine, I'll remove the bit about Indian Jews, but the rhetoric of LeT is clearly anti-Semitic and should be mentioned.Shiva's Trident 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: You haven't explained your point at all, only flamed.Shiva's Trident 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what your rewording read:
Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba have also expressed anti-Semitic views. Their propaganda arm has declared the Hindus and Jews of India to be "Enemies of Islam", and India and Israel to be the "Enemies ofPakistan.
inaccurate part: no where have they declared Indian jews to be enemies of Islam but their declaration was for Jewish folks in general.
Superflous part: the bits about hindus and india. This is about antisemitism, emanating from some quarters in the muslim world not hate about other non muslim groups in general. Read the Alqaeda part which too has had variosu declarations aganinst Jewish people as well as West and Christians. Again, the article is restricted to antisemitism.Omerlives 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Just to let people know that Arabs are Semites as well. They speak Arabic, which is a branch of Hebrew, which is a Semetic language. So when people say that Arabs are Anti-Semetic, it means that Arabs are self haters, which doesnt make sense. Arabs and Muslims do not hate the Jews, as they are told in the Quran to respect all religions. The Jews, as well as the Christians, are referred to as "The People of the Book," and Muslims share a close relationship to them. For exampe, Muslims are allowed to eat their meat.
Unfortunately, the view on Islam has become a negative one, where these "terrorists" use the name of Islam and God to justify what they are doing to innocent civilians. People need to be aware that Arabs and Muslims do not think that way at all. After all, who in the world doesnt want peace.
NOte the above was left by Nalalami
:This is how I used to feel too, but in my experience Muslims want peace but not peace with Israel, or at least not with an Israel that is not a Muslim-majority state.  It is really a sad thing because we are cousins, really, but this is how it is.  Elizmr 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pew global statistics reported that 100% of Jordan's population is antisemitic, as well as some 75% of Pakistan's population and more than 60% of Saudi Arabia's population. Also, see http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm . They even say that the Pope is a "Jewish puppet" </rolls eyes over head>.Hkelkar
For once, please do not jump and claim all ownership to the term 'Semitic', it is a historical fact that Arabs are semitic, [refer to A history of Saracens/Arabs]. The title of this article therefore is incorrect, in that it refutes itself. An Arab cannot be anti-semitic (by definition). Arab-Israel contentions are a different topic, entirely. 
PS. It cannot be stressed enough, and is vigorously ignored, but while writing for a global audience, PLEASE leave your biases at home. It will serve none of us.
I happened to read on this site (wikipedia) that the negative form of the adjective semitic (i.e. anti-semitic) is almost always used as a misnomer to mean "anti-Jewish" specifically. Further discussion on the issue of the true meaning of "semitic" and "anti-semitic" would be really pointless. Nontheless, the way the adjective is commonly used unfortunately continues to exclude other semites and there seems to be no attempt to correct this so that the (possibly) percieved disregard for the importance of other (non-Jewish) semites is no longer implicit in the real meaning of the word. Please correct me if I am wrong. 
By the way, quoting from wikipedia again, "The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile")."  Bardylis 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs are Semites too 

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

message: Considering the vast majority of this article deals with Muslims, either in specifics or in general,  and has very little on the actual religion of Islam, I have been bold enough to move it to a more appropriate title. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how the "actual religion of Islam" is different from its practice by the Muslims. Beit Or 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what respect? Muslims carry out actions, Islam is a religion.  Muslims carry out actions that other muslims say are unislamic, but still carried out by Muslims.  Please explain your opposition more clearly. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam is what Muslims teach and do. There is no idealized Islam that would exist independently of the people who practice this religion. Beit Or 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, what?!  Muslims teach cricket and play (do) cricket, and tht has nothing to do with Islam. As detailed in the opening of this article, antisemitism is not a part of Islam, but has been used and abused by Muslims.  As such, a more accurate reflection of the incidence and its history would be Muslims (the folks who did/do it) and antisemitism (what those folks did/do) --Irishpunktom\talk 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This article deals at length with the beliefs of Islam regarding Jews, and the interpretations of scholars of Islam on that topic. As such, it quotes the Qur'an, sharia, etc. Therefore, a move makes little sense. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening of the article, mentioned by Irishpunktom, only gives one leapfrog-cited opinion of one scholar, who is hardly an expert on antisemitism, that antisemitism was not part of medieval Islam. It is unprecedented on Wikipedia to start an article with a denial of its subject; as a result, the whole article looks extremely tendentious. Beit Or 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The intro was re-written by an editor who is enamored with Lewis, and who is attempting to debunk the notion. It's poorly written and tendentious, as you say. Jayjg (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This love affair is of a weird sort: this editor seems to have forgotten that Lewis has written Semites and anti-Semites, which is all about antisemitism in the modern Muslim world. Beit Or 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: page move

message: To begin such an article with the quote "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. Quoted in Cohen (1995) p.xvii is POV. We already discussed this elsewhere. I suspect that this quote is taken out of context. Also, let's try to introduce some structure to this amorphous text. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, I welcome your efforts in restoring reasonableness in this article. I'm not entirely happy with the current intro, which does not adequately summarize the article's content, but it's light years ahead of what it was. Beit Or 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is nothing... and more 

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

message: Unless a paragraph is not tied to Anti-semtism by the author it shouldn't be included in anti-semitism articles. --Aminz 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholars write for reasonable audience and do not start each and every paragraph with an introduction "the following is about antisemitism". Usually, they hold such things to be self-evident. Beit Or 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: The tags are supposed to specify the issue as accurately as possible. All the tags are created by us. Should you state a policy requiring the tag to go, it can be removed. --Aminz 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin asked for the reasons for the tag. Well as it is clear from the two versions, the dispute is that Encyclopedia of Islam, Bernard Lewis, Claude Cahen et al are reliable sources. It is the same dispute over the antisemtism article. --Aminz 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Talk:Antisemitism how Aminz lost that dispute. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: You have so far did not cite any scholar of antisemitism proper, who would agree with your POV. Beit Or 07:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, care to give me a quick briefing? --Striver 12:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROTFL! Striver first reverted, then asked what's going on! Beit Or 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is obvious for any editor to see the existence of a dispute on the talk page. If not from here, the article is clear on that point. --Aminz 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your response is hostile and non sequitur. You must cite scholars of antisemitism when editing this topic. Beit Or 10:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah? Now try to look at the first section of the article "Quran on Jews". Not only must you quote scholars on anti-Semitism, more importantly you must quote credible scholars of Quran as well. Getting scholars with little education on Quran is ok for quoting historical facts, general Muslim attitude, politics of anti-Semitism etc. But in order to compare Quran with Jews and/or anti-Semitism, you need Quranic scholars with proper education in Quran.Bless sins 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know that the predominant interpretation of these Quranic verses is different among the ulema, then say so, citing sources. Otherwise, your argument makes no sense. Beit Or 13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is beside the point. I am not saying that the info in the article is false. I am saying that the info is not verified or referenced to proper sources. Only authorities on the Quran can be quoted to give a fair perspective on what the Quran says. For example I can't quote an Islamic scholar to argue "the Torah says such and such". I need to quote a respected Rabbi, or someone with a distinguished academic background in the Torah. Similarly, you need someone with a strong academic background in the Quran (and even Islamic Law, Fiqh and hadith) to interret what the Quran says. I have already said this several times on this page (see section above). I don't want to keep repeating myself.Bless sins 13:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're not stating what material in the article is wrong and how it can be made right. The section on the Qur'an is sourced to proper, reliable academic sources, so your objections regarding reliability look weird. Beit Or 13:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, at this point in time I am not question some particular statements. Rather I am asking you to show me how some a particular person qualifies to be a Quranic scholar. Let's take our discussiong to the section above ("Islamic scholars??") that I created (more than 20 days ago) to handle this very issue. You can respond under "Response here:" Bless sins 13:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't question any content, then it's not even content dispute. I cannot see any reason for continuing this discussion. Beit Or 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am questioning some content. See section above.Bless sins 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

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

message: The  tag is displayed at the beginning of this article. What is being disputed?--Sefringle 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Edits_by_Bless_sins for the latest dispute, not to mention other unresolved disputes in other sections.Bless sins 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dispute

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

message: Sorry to be thick, but I really can't see that the removal of a series of links is vandalism. In my book vandalism is blanking a whole page with "nah nah nah nah nah poo-poo". And then we still assume good faith and inform the editor kindly that their "test" has been reverted. Articles don't have to have external links at all, so it is not seriously damaging the encyclopedia to remove them. And in this case, all the links are to articles and websites making strong political points. Take for example one sourced to Haaretz. No problem with Haaretz as a reliable source, however the link is not to news but an op-ed piece. How were these links chosen and why? Sure, it is a point that needs to be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Itsmejudith 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of another word to describe wholesale removal of all external links without saying even a word on talk, let alone getting consensus for the removal. You've been on Wikipedia for sufficiently long to assume you're not testing. Some of the existing links are not good, but others are pretty decent, including an article by a no lesser authority than Martin Kramer. Beit Or 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Edit-warring" as a word to describe what's happening? Oh, and I was mistaken on the Haaretz, it's an interview with Tariq Ramadan. The only point I would make about that, the Kramer etc., is if they are worth referring to at all they are worth citing in the article, not as external links. Many contentious articles don't have external links. They are not like an article on a town, where the town's own website does duty as main source and external link. Or an article on a company. Itsmejudith 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, Itsmejudith. Haaretz is a bad source on Islam and antisemitism unless it publishes an interview with Tariq Ramadan. This says volumes about your argumentation: you exclude or defend sources based on their real or suspected POV, not on reliability. Beit Or 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All your questions were answered a long time ago. Please stop pestering. Beit Or 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Beit Or, but you WILL have to either explain, or point to when my questions "were answered". Bless sins 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Since no other suggestions for sorting the lead have been forthcoming, may I suggest the following:
The question of whether there is antisemitism in Islam or among Muslims has been discussed in relation to various aspects of Islamic tradition and the practice of Muslims, including:
*the references to Jews and Judaism in the Qur'an and sunna;
*the history of early Islam and the relationship of Muhammad to Arab tribes that practised forms of Judaism;
*the way that Jewish minorities were treated in medieval Islamic states; and
*attitudes and practices of modern Muslims and governments of countries with Muslim majorities.
NB that I'm only putting this forward to get a discussion going. I don't think it's a particularly good lead. It'll probably please no-one but it does make a start on reflecting the current contents of the article. Itsmejudith 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The attempt to rewrite the lead is appreciated, but it still doesn't meet with WP:LEAD as it shouldn't say "is the subject of this article". Itsmejudith 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood.  Didn't like that myself ... just a first effort ... feel free to improve upon it.  Tx. --Epeefleche 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead suggestion 

message: Beit Or, why do you say this is not relevant? Could you spell it out please because I really don't see why it wouldn't be. Itsmejudith 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, most of these material should be moved to that article and a short summary of it presented here. --Aminz 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also Islam and Judaism 

message: Re this diff , as explained above it should be sourced to the author and the type of attack should be specified and further should be put into its context. --Aminz 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beit Or's edits 

message: :"and the Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise."
I took this out because it tries to say that Islamic fundamentalism are true followers of the Qur'an. Any group of Muslims believe they are following what the Qur'an really says, so that's POV and unreferenced. The sentence is also not adding any information to the article. We already know that the Qur'an is the holy book of Muslims. --Aminz 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may dislike this sentence, but it's both sourced and important. Beit Or 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the sentence is that it presents "The Qur'an contains attacks on Jews for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God" as a fact.  I there are important views that disagree--and mostly with the inflammatory language of "attacks on the Jews".  No one will deny that there are important theological differences, however calling it attacks on the anti-Semitism page furthers linking the Qur'an with anti-Semitism when I think many Muslims and scholars would argue that they are theological differences that are far and away from anti-Semitism.  I don't like Aminz's wording very much either but I disagree that saying it's sourced solves the problem.  I hope the brief explanation helps and I'm sorry for my first throw-away response. gren グレン 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe alternative sources can be found, but what I have at the moment only supports the current wording. Compare, for example, "...the holy writings of Islam contained many anti-Jewish declarations..." (Laqueur p. 192) or "The Koran is laced with anti-Jewish pronouncements." (Gerber p. 78). Beit Or 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what scholarship does Lacquer have to comment on "Koran"?? One  In fact the study of its interpretation is known as tafsir. Please cite sources that are actually RS in the field of the Quran.Bless sins 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need to get these books and see what they really say. In any case, every sentence must be attributed to the authors. No contest about that. From theological perspective must be added to that sentence and the context of it must be specified as I did. We don't want to say some vague sentence like "The Qur'an attacked Jews" and leave it alone to reader's imagination. --Aminz 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like Bless sins edit . Aside from these, I can easily find academic sources which say some positive things about the Qur'an and Jews. That's not hard. But the point is that these should be all in the context of antisemitism. The Judica Encyclopedia quote is at least taken from Antisemitism article. I need to check others as well. Most of the edits from Yahud article, EOI should be deleted because they are not in the context of antisemitism. --Aminz 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: If there are (relevent) scholars who say something, it would possibly merit inclusion into the article. But since when do school books represent Muslim beliefs? Unless this literature circulates the "department of religion" at Saudi universities, or other religious institutions, it says nothing about Islam and Muslims.
In addition, it needs to be justified that the source actually says that this curriculum is antiSemitic because such and such.Bless sins 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant scholars refer to these schoolbooks and teachings.  That is reflected I believe in the article.  
Furthermore, the Basic Law of Government of the Saudi Kingdom adopted in 1992 declared that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a) [1].
Also, these are clearly comments as to the Koran. They are not, in contrast, statements as to secular policy.
The quotes, brought together, support the comments now added to the article by a Professor of Islam that Moslems are taught anti-semitic interpretations of the Qu'ran.
As to your other points, please point us to specific Wiki policy that supports your notions that: 1) the source must identify the comment as anti-semitic -- rather than "res ipsa loquitur"; 2) quotes by Palestineans (because they are small in number - a comment I view as belittling, to be quite honest ... they may be too small in number to be important to you, but if you read Arabic or Western press I believe you will see that others have a different view), Hezbollah, or Saudi government-approved textbooks that invoke the Qu'ran are not representative enough to appear hear.  Surely, you do not think that all should appropriately be set forth here is a statistically significant sampling of the entire Moslem world, or statements by Imams or professors of Islam. If you do, please point to the Wiki policy that supports that sentiment. Tx. --Epeefleche 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is taught in Saudi secular schools has nothing to do with Islam or Muslim belief. Paksitan, has passed similar laws to Saudi Arabia stating that Qur'an is the constitution of the country, yet it has legalized alcohol. Are you then going to say that Islam allows alcohol?  Remember this aricle is about Islam not Saudi schools.Bless sins 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Busy right now, and wish to provide you with a considered response, but will be back to you. --Epeefleche 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some thoughts.  
You still have not responded to most of my above comments.  Responding to your above suggestion, though, my thoughts are as follows.
1 & 2.  I think that it suffices for something to be patently anti-semitic.  I do not see any need in such circumstances for there to be an allegation of antisemitism.  Massacres, comments that Jews are pigs or apes, etc. speak for themselves.  If you have a different view, let me know where in Wiki policy it comes from.  
3.  You might want to take a look at Wiki policy vis-a-vis your thoughts on reliable sources.  In any event, I do not think that we have to limit ourselves to Moslems here, or to scholars whose lone specialty is Islam and to Imams.  I think it quite appropriate of course to quote those people.  But I think it quite proper for there to be references here to statements made by Hamas, Egyptian and Saudi authorities, and -- because it is broadcast by the Saudi government to Moslems worldwide -- yes, a 3-year-old girl, as standing for the proposition that an on-its-face antisemitic interpretation of the Qu'ran has been delivered by the authorities and those in power in the Arab world to the Moslem population, who have at times learned this from a very early age.  
4.  I am not sure that I follow this last point.  --Epeefleche 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The claim of minority view is risible because whether a majority or minority view, it still belongs in the article, as long as it antisemitism. Beit Or 13:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can't overblow the minority view, and make it seem like most Muslims share the views of Hamas etc., per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.Bless sins 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. The article does not at the moment discuss the prevalence of antisemitic views among Muslims. Beit Or 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this is rare, I absolutely agree with you. We need to bring more mainstream perspectives and limit the extremist ones. I mean look at Hezbolllah, they are not even dominant in Lebanon (as didn't win the majority of votes), how can they be representative of the Muslims?Bless sins 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabian schoolbooks

message: A review of the section of the book written by Gerber says:
:But Jane Gerber, too, can point out that Mubammad’s attitude may largely reflect patterns of client relationships between desert tribes. And modern Arab anti-Semitism, she adds, draws heavily on the input of Christian Arabs so prominent in Arab nationalist movements. Is there perhaps some relationship between this anti-Semitism and a Christian Arab sense of incomplete social integration in the Arab world?
So, one of us should read Gerber for checking the factual accuracy of all statements in this article. --Aminz 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerber II