Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I was almost thinking about tagging the Saudi Arabia section with , 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)
thread_title: Balance tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Balance of the article 

message: 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". 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: Why is it POV? --Aminz 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cohen says "Most scholars believe". It is thus a report not a view of a certain scholar. --Aminz 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just Cohen's opinion that most scholars agree with him. Beit Or 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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.  Do you also say that the Oxford Handbook of Judaism is mistaken? --Aminz 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: You may want to ask him directly. Beit Or 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  Stillman says Antisemitism. So does Claude Cahen, and Bernard Lewis. --Aminz 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they don't appear to be talking about the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Read the big yellow box on top of Jayjg's talk page. Beit Or 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:STALK. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Down, boy.  I came in through the side door from NAS.--G-Dett 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIV. Beit Or 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: I removed the geocities link. Are the frontpage.com links appropriate? Thanks, --Tom 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, unless they rely on a reliable source.Bless sins 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please don't blindly revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Edits to the Intro 

message: At the time of this writing, the last 12 edits to this article have been reverts. Enough is enough. Talk here! Let's work together. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirbytime, we have already talked here. Please take a look at the above sections. --Aminz 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Parodying your fellow Wikipedians is uncivil. Beit Or 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Your misrepresentation of my comment is uncivil --Aminz 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: Prejudices against Jews is the definition of antisemitism.--Sefringle 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Getting interesting. Now we are inventing new words. What about "Anti-Christianism"? lol --Aminz 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-Christian_prejudice. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the talk pages! Enough revert warring. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I oppose WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to move to [[Islam and antisemitism allegations]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I already have, but none of your sources mention antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] 

message: here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you think of Christianity and antisemitism?Proabivouac 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be moved as well, along with any "Religion" and antisemitism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ^^^^original research. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all explained in the article, with citations provided.--Sefringle 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I need some opinion from muslim and jews, perhaps. 

message: Can "Panorama" in the BBC section be wikilinked to Panorama (TV series)? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In the future, if you use the  tag, it flags the page for admins. -- Avi 02:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's just a throwaway opinion, without any discussion. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Does he back it up with any argument, statistics, discussion? Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "...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)
thread_title: Edit 4