Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 3

message: Where do you start with this article? Bits added here and there, very little of it from truly scholarly sources, no attempt to reflect the range of academic views. Now accusations flying of WP:POINT and goodness knows what else. 
So to go back to the beginning, which appears to be the Qur'an. Firstly it is absolutely essential to make it clear that the interpretation of a text hundreds of years old in a language that is no longer anyone's first language is not going to be straightforward. 
It is appropriate, I think, to list all the verses that have been interpreted at some time as attacking or disparaging Jews (and/or Christians). This should lead straight into a thorough and balanced discussion of the different interpretations that have been made. 
This doesn't currently happen, and instead we leap straight to the year 888, when the Aghlabids, who may have had some kind of control of some or all of Sicily (but still disputed full control with the Byzantines) issued a proclamation. I don't know whether the book referred to is an academic one or not - it is with a very good publisher, so let us assume it is, but I am concerned that the point is not directly related to the topic of the book, and also that this event does not appear in the Yellow badge or Timeline of antisemitism articles. It may be a good point to add, but will need proper checking. 
Then another leap into the 21st century. I personally am in no doubt that Saudi textbooks have referred to the Qur'anic texts that mention apes and pigs - however, those texts are still open to interpretation. It is a live controversy and notable. Irrefutable sourcing can be made to the UK news media, because there was a recent case of an Islamic school in London using textbooks of Saudi origin that had such references. I saw the head teacher interviewed on the BBC. She did not deny that there were such references in the textbooks, but she did say that there were different interpretations of the Qur'anic verses, also that those chapters in the book had not been used in the school. Itsmejudith 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much more work needed on NPOV 

message: That Muslims hold that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion is cutting off a motivation for antisemitism (i.e. the "Jews killed Jesus" statements...) rather than one provoking antisemitism. --Aminz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you saying, and what is your source? Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence against antisemitism is presented as one pro it 

message: I don't think a lead should start "this article is about". It should ideally start "Islam and antisemitism" is ... . Itsmejudith 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is quite valid, however, we can't seem to agree with what the relationship between Islam and antisemitism actually is.Bless sins 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had something to propose. Doesn't the fact that it is hard to formulate a lead in the proper terms say something about the rationale for this article? I will raise it on the WP:LEAD talk page in case similar problems afflict other articles. Itsmejudith 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The nature and extent of the relationship between "antisemitism and Islam" is a hotly-debated issue in contemporary Middle East politics."? There's no sensible sentence that can start with  "Islam and antisemitism", since the article title is a compromise. Hornplease 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Sefringle, there are some important scholars, including Bernard Lewis, no less, who have specifically discussed the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Not only can their views be reflected here, they should be reflected here, and in fact the whole article should be based around these serious views of serious scholars. Of course it is a POV in the sense that anything that anyone says is a POV. Note that these scholars do not argue that it is impossible for Muslims to be antisemitic, they are simply saying that there is no intrinsic relationship between the religion Islam and the ideology of antisemitism. Although there are some contrary views that may also be discussed if they can be attributed to scholars of the issue, this is in fact the scholarly consensus and the article has to make the fact plain. Itsmejudith 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Who's to say it is the scholarly consensus? Lewis is one scholar, Cohan is another. While their views can be expressed here, they are only two people, and their views may not represent those of all scholars. Leon Poliakov, Walter Laqueur, and Jane Gerber are also scholars. We should let the readers decide for themselves whether Islam truly is an antisemitic religion or not, and not take a particular stance on that. Lewis' views are pretty well represented in this article in my opinion.--Sefringle 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Poliakov's views haven't. He has said a lot of postiive things about Muhammad (e.g. that Muhammad was very resepectful towrds the Jews). Infact, I have yet to verify the source in which Poliakov accuses Islam of anti-semitism. In anycase, Bernard Lewis is an exceptional scholar because he is a scholar both on Islam(ic history) and antisemtism. Mark Cohen is also a scholar on Jews under Islam. Most of the rest of the scholars quoted are either scholars on Islam or antisemitism.Bless sins 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not who is more scholarly. The point is we should represent both viewpoints fairly and evenly.--Sefringle 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle I agree. But please give me some to time to actually verify what Poliakov says. I don't think any scholar is of the view that Islam is an anti-semitic religion. That is not only a myth but also quite an extremist view similar to that of Blood libel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refraim from calling peoples views "extremist."--Sefringle 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what should I call views that make blanket allegations against 1.2 billion people of hatred?Bless sins 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not making "blanket allegations." They are offering evidence to prove their point. That is not blanket.--Sefringle 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And if Lewis in his wisdom chooses to approach the subject by way of a contrast between Islam and Christianity then it is not up to us to deem the contrast "off-topic". (So long as we do not digress any further into Christianity-related matters than necessary in order to make the point about Islam.) Itsmejudith 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proabivouac, thanks for your self-revert. The second sentence "according to him (Chanes)..." reads oddly because in Islam there can be no concept of deicide. It is a Christian concept related to the incarnation. Chanes is not the original source of this fact, but is simply repeating it in order to illustrate the contrast between the Christian-Jewish relation and the Islamic-Jewish relation. Itsmejudith 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I self-reverted is because I saw that the crucifixion is indeed discussed, thus part of the Lewis material is indeed relevant.Proabivouac 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proabivouac, your edits went beyond the material on Christianity. there was a lot of material that you (probably accidently) moved to the inappropriate section.Bless sins 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sefringle's revert 

message: Bless sins, can you please explain your recent edits?--Sefringle 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bless Sins' recent edits

message: There's a bit of a game going on with Bless sins' arguments, above. I'll summarize them so we don't have to keep going round and round.
*If Bless sins doesn't have a copy of a source, he challenges it claiming that it doesn't refer directly to antisemitism, and insisting it must be removed until someone can prove it refers directly to antisemitism.
*If the source clearly refers to antisemitism, but uses a synonym like "anti-Jewish sentiment", he challenges it claiming that it is original research to associate anti-Jewish sentiment with antisemitism, regardless of the fact that they are synonyms, and insisting it must be removed.
*If the source clearly refers to antisemitism, and uses the words antisemitism, he challenges it claiming the source is not an expert in antisemitism, and insisting it must be removed until someone can prove the source is an expert in antisemitism.
All challenges are made solely for the purpose of removing any source which asserts a relationship between Islam and antisemitism. At some point the game playing must stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That seems to be the case with this recent edit. I'd revert it, but currently if I did so I'd be in violation of the 3RR. I was hoping Bless Sins would explain his/her edits here on the talk page, but Oh well.--Sefringle 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In this edit,  Bless sins states, "this source is neither reliable nor about antisemitism." There are actually two sources here, one of which may well be unreliable, but the other is Encyclopedia Britannica, and alleges that Al-Hakim "persecuted Christians and Jews. The other alleges that "in 1007 he burned down the entire Jewish quarter in Cairo." I fail to understand how one can with a straight face claim that Britannica is not a reliable source, or that these points are not "about antisemitism."Proabivouac 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB that Al-Hakim was recognised to be completely mad. Not an excuse for the persecution of Jews, of course, but part of an explanation. Itsmejudith 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proabivouac, one of the sources, as you said is not reliable. The Britannica is definetly reliable but doesn't specifically refer to antisemitism. Persecution is not the same as antisemitism. If you think it is I can bring many mnay sources that suggest that Muslims did not persecute minoirities (but do not refer specifically to antisemitism).Bless sins 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so neither anti-Jewish sentiment, nor persecution of Jews, is actually antisemitism. Astonishing. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make straw-man arguments. I have said that you need RS that suggest if an example of persecution is antisemitism or not. (Similarly you would need reliable sources to state "Paris is the capital of France" even though the statement is obviously true).Bless sins 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please re-read my comments above; this isn't about reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this page you tried to (incorrectly) summarize my argument. Now you are running away from a fundamental issue. You must provide reliable sources for all content (and the sources need to be in relation to Islam and antisemitism). Bless sins 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Bless sins' arguments 

message: This section needs serious help. It appears at first glance that the claims of Lewis and Chanes have been intermingled and potentially corrupted, and at times its not clear what is being said. I'd like to verify who is saying what, and clean up some of the language.Proabivouac 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For this reason I don't want to leave Chanes' commentary there. In anycase the whole section should be presented as "Islamic theology" which keeps parts directly related to Islamic theology and minimizes comparisons to Christianity.Bless sins 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to the Bible

message: Violates WP:Due weight
The section is supposed to be about antisemitism inside the Qur'anic literature(as a subsection of "Qur'an"). That for example during tensions between the two community, the phrase was used by Muslims in abusive language, or that a certain Muslim dynasty in North Africa set up certain regulations are indirectly related. They deserve a brief mention in a few sentences (with the details coming in relevant sections). Currently, we have dedicated more than 1 page to it writing about what Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar stated on Syrian TV or what 'Abd Al-Sattar on November 8, 2005 said. By 2000+ quotes I mean quotes coming from year 2000 and afterwards. 
I have summerized everything in the following which could be added to the "Attack" section:
"There are a number of other verses that refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs (e.g. see ,, and ).  Glazov, Jamie, "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism", FrontPageMag.com, June 25, 2004. (retrieved May 3, 2006) According to some commentators the transformation literary happened while others understand it metaphorically (e.g. as something that happened to Jewish hearts).  Andrew Rippin, Sabbath, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an  Johannes J. G. Jansen states that the qur'anic verse  qualifies the Jews of Medina with the epithets apes and pigs. Many modern preachers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century.Johannes J. G. Jansen, The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism, p. 179 Glazov, Jamie, "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism", FrontPageMag.com, June 25, 2004. (retrieved May 3, 2006) According to Lewis, the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims and the conventional epithets for Jews are apes, and for Christians are pigs. Lewis (1984) p.33 "
The details can go to the relevant sections. Any objections?--Aminz 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz take a look at what appears to be source number 4 (i.e "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism"). In that souce, the only scholar, Khaleel Mohammed, is trying to say that the Quran is not attacking the Jews. Thus the very source holding up the section is trying to say that the Quran is not antisemitic. Interesting isn't it?Bless sins 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Khaleel Mohammed is quite clear that various Muslim preachers use those verses to attack Jews. More interesting is source number 5, "Andrew Rippin, Sabbath, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an". As far as I can tell, it doesn't refer to antisemitism at all. Why haven't you protested its inclusion? Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the source yet (just like I haven't read numerous other sources). And the source doesn't raise any red flags. It's about Islam, it connects to Judaism (though I don't know if it's about antisemitism). Finally, in anycase, the source is reliable. COmpare this with "Yahsar of Candia", which is not about Islam and not about antisemitism.Bless sins 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements sourced to Barzilay/Yahsar of Candia discuss the designation of Jews as monkeys and Christians as pigs, and are topical to this section for the very same reason Rippin's article is. Aminz has complained about the focus on recent statements in this section, so I think he should be interested in retaining this report on this 9th century practice.Proabivouac 23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Islam and antisemitism. Does Barzilay cite antisemitism when making his arguments? Furhter, is barzilay a reliable source on antisemitism (or Islam)?Bless sins 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed source number 5, until Aminz can show how it is related to Islam and antisemitism. Let's see if Jayjg begins the removal of other ORs, perhaps the one listed under "Edit 5".Bless sins 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muslim_beliefs_that_certain_Jews_were_transformed_into_apes_and_pigs" section 

message: Change: Move "Judaism in Islamic theology" section to "tolerance for Jews" section. Also replacing "Modern scholars" with "According to Bernard Lewis[24] and Jerome Chanes"
Reason: This discusses Lewis' view that Jews are not antisemitic. Thus Lewis is saying that muslims are tolerant for Jews and thus cannot be antisemitic. Thus it is related to tolerence section. The origional title is very POV, so it is more relevant under the tolerence section. the name change is necessary, as nobody speaks for everyone.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Judaism in Islamic theology" and "Tolerance for Jews" discuss really different topics. The former section has nothing to with whether Islam should give Jews tolerance on not. While the latter section is about the practice Islam encourages. Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they discuss the same topics. The "Judaism in Islamic theology" is just a fancy title for you to hide the fact that you are pushing the view that the "tolerence for Jews" is correct while the intolerence section is the incorrect view.--Sefringle 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tolerance for Jews" is a POV title, and in any event irrelevant to the topic of this article. It should be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be deleted, but it was a compromise to stuff all the irrelevant "the quran praises Jews" stuff in that section.--Sefringle 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Attacks on Jews" is also a POV title. hte fact is that each of the source I have cited is specifcially in relation to both Islam and antisemitism. Alos, please note WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.Bless sins 00:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is also not a soapbox. We are talking about relevancy here.--Sefringle 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse not. That's why you can't reject sources because they are not in accordance with your POV. All the information here is relevent. It is sourced to rewliable sources in relation to Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 01:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, material that says stuff like "the qur'an respects jews" is not relevant to the topic of antisemitism.--Sefringle 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what tolerance is about. tolerance is about not persecuting Jews. In any case, I'm not the one who is saying that respect for Jews is related to antisemitism, it is the scholars who are saying that. All my content is sourced. You are free to verify.Bless sins 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok so if a passage says "Muslims are not antisemitic", then it must be relvent to antisemitism! Don't you agree?Bless sins 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I think a fair compromise was to put all the tolerence stuff in the same section. That is where this belongs. Most of the stuff in the tolerence section is irrelevant, but I am not going to delete it as a compromise.--Sefringle 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with putting "all the tolerence stuff in the same section". But Islamic theology isn't neccessarily tolerance. It is just how Islam views Judaism, and Jewish theology, and whether it conflicts with Islam. You should know that antisemitism doesn't necceasirly mean intolerance for Jews. People can be anitsemitic without bieng opprssive, and they can be oppressive without bieng antisemitic.Bless sins 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if they are oppressive to Jews as a whole, because they are Jews, it is antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictators of Muslim countries (e.g. Saddam) have been really oppressive. That doesn't neccessarily mean that they hated Jews in particular.Bless sins 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If their intended group whom they targeted their oppression is Jews, it is antisemitism. Even if other groups were targeted as well. Otherwise, the Nazis or the KKK could not be considered antisemitic.--Sefringle 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Often the intended group is not Jews, but they would still end up getting killed. For example, if Jewish soldiers died on the field of battle on the allied side in WWI it was because they were fighting for the allies, not ebcause they were Jewish. In anycase why are we arguing about this. There is a clear difference between having prejudice for a religion, and persecuting members of that religion. Ali Sina is biased against Islam, but does that mean he advocates persecuting Muslims?Bless sins 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, however if the intended target for the persecution is Jews, even if the intended group is Jews + others, it is antisemitism. Criticism of Judaism is not antisemitism, however hating all Jews is.--Sefringle 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having prejudice against Judaism is considered antisemitism - atleast by Lewis, Chanes, Rosenblatt and Pinson. Yet they are not talking about tolerance at all.Bless sins 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am too. The section is about tolerence. It is saying muslims are not antisemitic, thus they are tolerent of Jews.--Sefringle 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false. None of the scholars have said anything about "tolerance".Bless sins 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No there is also neutral or indifferent. I have clearly stated many times: the authors of this have said nothing about tolerance. Bless sins 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this passage certianly is not describing Neutral or indifferent.--Sefringle 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 2'

message: Change: Moving Uri Rubin and Tahir Abbas section to tolerence section
Reason: It is more relevant to have all the similar views together. This discusses tolerence.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Abbas' and Rubin's views are a counter argument to those who say the Quran attacks Jews. Neither Rubin's statement nor Abbas' statement (that I put in "Attacks on Jews" section) have said anything about the Quran encouraging Muslim to show tolerance towards Jews.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter arguements belong in the tolerence section, as that is where the rebuddles are. As their comments are not acutally saying that they believe the quran attacks Jews, but are actually trying to prove the opposite, their views belong in the tolerence section.--Sefringle 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again the counter-arguments have nothing to do with tolerance. Neither Rubin nor Abbas, in thier counter arguments, say anything about tolerating Jews. They only say that criticsim/attacks can be interpreted differently. Form what I see here, you think that everyhting that is not your POV should go in the "tolerance" section.Bless sins 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They most ceritanly are related to tolerence. Saying the quran is antisemitic means saying the quran calls for intolerence to Jews. Thus a rebuddle is saying the quran is not antisemitic, or is tolerent of Jews. This is simple difinition. What I am saying is anything that calls for positive treatment of Jews belongs in the tolerence section, because that is the definition of tolerence.--Sefringle 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes of Rubin and Abbas concerned are not asserting that Islam encourages positive treatment of Jews. Rahter the quotes are suggesting that Islamic criticism of Jews is not against all Jews, but only the sinners/violaters of Judaism. They are simply not talking about tolerance.Bless sins 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They certianly are not attacking Jews, thus it is more relevant in the tolerence section. See my above comment.--Sefringle 04:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made tens of comments above. Be specific. The comments of Rubin and Abbas are regarding the allegations that the Quran attacks/criticizes the Jews. In any case they are in a seperate sub-section (according to my edits).Bless sins 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the comment right above my most recent one, thus the one dated 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 3'

message: Change: restoring "Muslim beliefs that certain Jews were transformed into apes and pigs" section
Reason: Very relevant to this topic, part of the qur'an, pretty well sourced to secondary scholarly sources. It is not already covered in the attacks on Jews section, as that section mentions nothing about Jews being "apes and pigs."--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't really proper sources for this section. In any case, it seems like another "Attack on Jews", and that's where it belongs. The section did mention something about the Jews being Apes and pigs, until you reverted my edits.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, for the sake of compromise I have left the section, but have moved Arab sermons down to the section on "Arab sermons". See "Edit summaries" for my reason why.Bless sins 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.--Sefringle 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 4'

message: Change: keep the relevant quranic verses mentioned showing, outside of  system
"Reason:' make links to the verses easily avaliable to viewers. There is no reason to hide them.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we also put references (e.g. Lewis (1999), pg. 202) explicity as well. Is there any reson for "hiding" these references? COmmon sense says that we seperate reference from comments. No one is hiding them, jsut putting them at their proper place.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See below. It is hiding the verses. The verses are not references; they are there to provide insight into which verses in the qur'an are being refered to, and should be easily accessable to the readers.--Sefringle 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess references should also be easily accesibly for the readers? Why don't we drop "ref" altogethor. That way nothing can be hidden.(sarcasm) Bless sins 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quranic verses are not references. They are part of the material content of this article. Unless you are saying quoting the qur'an directly without a secondary source is acceptable, in which case it would be a primary source. But in the way it is written in this article, it isn't a reference. It is part of the encyclopedia information.--Sefringle 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I am willing to concede. The best route here is to post something on WP:CITE. I'll post something soon.Bless sins 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 5'

message: Change:Seperate "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam" into "events" and "views"
Reason: The events are facts. The views, on the other hand are opinions, and thus can easily be disputed. They are just commentary on the events. They need to be seperated for easier reference and for clarification. It is also less POV to do things this way. The events need to be on the top, because that is the indisputed history, while opinions are not as important to the topic.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally understand your edits, but advise a more moderate approach. You suggestion confuses things up. For example, a commentary regarding an event belongs right below, not in another (sub)section. Rather you should consider seperating the section by time period and concept. For example, keeping the comparison of Islam with Christian Europe seperate from the rest of the section. That will achieve what you want to, but not in such a drastic manner.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, the events are not "undisputed history". This is because there is debate whether the events are antisemitism or not. Thus scholarly opinions that give an introduction to the treatment of Jews should be near the top (because introductions belong near the top, not at the bottom). Just because something is at the top doesn't mean that it is more important, or more accurate.Bless sins 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debates mentioned in this article are not over whether they are antisemitsim. The debates and commentary are over whether antisemitism was commonplace in the muslim world, and most of it says no. Commentary is not as important as actual events.--Sefringle 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have seperated the section into the following categories: Early Muslim rule, Later periods, Muslim Spain, Views. Thoughts?Bless sins 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acceptable, as long as it is above the commentary, unless Jayig has some objection.--Sefringle 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many small sections, and in any event was accompanied by many unacceptable edits intended to hide anything implying antisemitism in Islam, and emphasize anything stating the opposite. Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections will grow. Nothing happens over night. Please have patience.Bless sins 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 6'

message: Removing: 
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.Barzilay, I., Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia):  His Life, Works and Times, Brill (1997 [1974]).  p. XXIV It is not known whether this was ever applied. There are reports of relatively frequent repetition of the ordinance in Sicily and North Africa. This has been both interpreted to mean that "it was not rigorously enforced - while the same has been adduced for the opposite."  I Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): 383-1300,  Brill Academic Publishers, Introduction 
Reason: Verifcation failed. I got the book and the given pages (i.e. 24 and 33) don't mention anything about antisemitism. Furthermore the pages also don't mention anything about the Aghlabid dynasty forcing the Jews to wear a patch. The index does not have the words "Palermo" and "Aghlabid". All references to "Sicily" and "North African communities" in the index don't mention the above event. Furthermore, all of the dates I found in the book were from fifteenth century and later. The book doesn't seem to at all discuss what happened in the ninth century.
If you want the section restored, please provide the relevent quote below. Also, mention the relvent part (e.g.  one, two) and chapter (e.g Yashar's Early Years in Candia").Bless sins 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you got the book, can you please provide the exact passage? like copy the page or something.--Sefringle 01:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is nothing there to provide you with. It doesn't dicuss anything relvent. Page 24 is about the early years of Yashar. The dates are from 1591.  Page 33 is about Arabic and Polish literature.Bless sins 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 7'

message: I created a section on literature in "Antisemitism in premodern Islam". In this section I have grouped togethor all examples of antisemitsm/lack of antisemitism. 
I also created a section called "dhimmi and jizya".
Reason: It organizes the article better. Also, the section "Early Islam", "Spain", and "Later rule" inherited from Sefringle's section called "Events". Literature and dhimmi, however, are not "events" and thus I put them in thier own sections respectively. I really don't see how creating these sections pushes a particular POV. So I don't think you guys should be opposed to this.Bless sins 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it. It doesn't seem there was anything repeated in that section, so it didn't require any changes to the other sections.--Sefringle 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there was information repeated. I'll remove it. Also, literature should go below the events (of early Islam etc.).Bless sins 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 8'

message: I don't think the following belongs in this article:
Lewis states that in contrast to Christian antisemitism, the attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims is not one of hate, fear, or envy, but rather simply contempt.  This contempt is expressed in various ways, such as abundance of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews.  "The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur."  The language of abuse is often quite strong.  The conventional epithets are apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians.  Lewis continues with several examples of regulations which were symbolizing the inferiority that non-Muslims living under Muslim rule had to live with, such as different formulae of greeting when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims (both in conversations or correspondences), and forbidding Jews and Christians to choose names used by Muslims for their children by the Ottoman times. Lewis (1984) p.33 
Reason: The only antisemitism that Lewis discusses on page 33 is Christian antisemitism. Although he refers to Muslim attitudes he refrains from saying any thing - positive or negative - about Mulims/Islam in relation to antisemitism. Also, Lewis' work is about Jews of Islam and not about Islam and antisemitism per se. Thus it can't easily be established that Lewis is talking about Islam and antisemitism. Unless, someone can show otherwise, I will remove this passage.Bless sins 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's talking about antisemitism, and contrasting Muslim with Christian antisemitism. You can't have it both ways with Lewis. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the problem - Lewis has nothing to say about Muslim antisemitism in that passage. He only talks about "Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims". (It would have been half relevent if talked about "Muslim attitude towards Jews").Bless sins 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews are non-Muslims, aren't they? Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so? If someone discriminates against people of all races and religions, except his/her own, doesn't make them an antisemite. Besides the biggest problem is that Lewis isn't talking about "antisemitism" in relation to Muslims, at all.Bless sins 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit 10'

message: Bless sins, you are adding material that says "in a hadith," meaning some scholar says some hadith says "(information)." Please specify which hadith.--Sefringle 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the scholar specifies a hadith. Poliakov lists another book form which he got that hadith. Please note, not all haidth are Sahih, thus not all can be found easily on the internet.Bless sins 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the reference Poliakov provides: Subki, Tabaqat al Chafi'iyya, I, 268 (quoted by Goldhizer, op. cit.).Bless sins 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very important to add which hadith it is. If we can get a hold of that source, it would be helpful for this article.--Sefringle 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I have provided you with all that I know.Bless sins 02:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hadith

message: The article should not list random acts of discrimination and persecution against Jews with no reference to their historical context. --Aminz 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing random acts of discrimination and persecution 

message: A positive description should proceed. Lewis provides the following quote in relation to Early Islam:
Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."
Rosenblatt and Esposito and F.E. Peters say similar statments. Rosenblatt for example says that  Muhammad's struggle with the neighbor Jewish tribes left no marked traces on his immediate successors (known as Caliphs). The first Caliphs based their treatment upon the Qur'anic verses encouraging tolerance. --Aminz 10:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What relevance is this to either Antisemitism or even Judaism? This article is not called Islam and tolerence. It is called Islam and antisemitism.--Sefringle 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sefringle, the material you remove from the article are taken from books written specifically on antisemitism (please check the title of the sources). To write about antisemitism is not to "prove" that Muslims are antisemitic but rather to "describe" it. If active persecutions were rare and the sources say that in relation to antisemitism, we should not randomly list certain persecutions  in the section but rather we should put it in their context. --Aminz 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote is about Christians. Christians are not Jews, and persecution of Christians cannot be considered antisemitic, because Christians are not Jews. So I still don't see the relevance. Even if this article was Islamic views of Jews, which it is not, and I have no intention of supporting any such move, it still would be irrelevant, because it is about Christians, not Jews.--Sefringle 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Islam 

message: I would like to add the following from Martin Kramer to the definition section. Kramer's article can be found here . 
 For Martin Kramer, two common answers to the question of the source of today's  antisemitism locates it "either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel." The argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essntial to Islam is that since the Qur'an states that some Jews engaged in treachery against Muhammad, it would inspire those Muslims who go back to the original sources of Jewish hatred. According to Kramer, this answer "touches on some truths, yet it misses many others". One is that in Islamic tradition, in striking contrast with the Christian concept of the eternal Jew, the the contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places; or that the Qur'an also records of Muhammad's amicable relations with some Jews. Kramer however states that today's Muslim antisemitism "make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use." 
--Aminz 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with adding his definiton from that source, however lets not take anything out of context. Specificly the last sentence. He never says it is a "distorting use"  alone. He also says there needs to be an additional influence --Sefringle 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quote from Kramer: "Today's Muslim antisemites make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use. For Muslims to arrive at the idea of an eternal Jew in Islam, for them to portray the Jews as "enemies of God," some additional influence must be at work." --Aminz 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I made a few corrections. I think equal influence needs to go to the next sentence as well.--Sefringle 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions