Talk:Persecution of Muslims

Move

I---Franklin Carroll---think that if there is going to be a page like this then there ought to be a page that details the persecutions muslims have carried out on others. Of course, this other page would be much longer.

Yeah, But that's not what this article's about.

Sign your name please Franklin Carrol. By the way, i suggest you delete the last sentense of your comment. It seems slightly racist. Thank you! (Ssd175 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

A previous attempt to delete this article failed. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Persecution of Muslims.

Wshun, I am sorry to have been so hasty to post this on VfD. I can see it is the basis for a substantial article. If it is still listed there, I will remove it. Good luck! Viajero 11:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply add this information to Muslim under a "Persecution of Muslims" section. There's nothing unique about persecution of Muslims vs persecution of any other group. Topical, perhaps, but not unique.
Tualha 23:20, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

If you agree to move Persecution of Christians to Christianity, then I support your idea. Wshhun

I edited the discussion of how the riots started to present a more neutral point of view. What is known that 58 Hindu pilgrims died due to a firebombing of a train by an alleged Muslim mob. Whether the mob did it or not, subsequent riots killed at least 1000 people, mostly Muslims. I wanted to introduce a more neutral point of view. user: 67.106.157.231

59 Hindu Piligrims including 14 children. Corrected the numbers.

'Hindu persecution of Muslims'

That section is marked NPOV. Largely Hindu India is represented by a Muslim president. Where is the persecution in that? Riots in a localized place does not characterize an avowed policy of persecution.

What has that got to do with anything? Leaving out the issue that the President 'position is largely ceremonial', and that the most powerful person in the Indian government is the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, who is Sikh, what has systematic persecution got to do with who sits at the head of government? Don't assume that just because the head of a nation has something to say it means that people are in the mood to listen to him. --T-Boy 15:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote this page? was it Bin Laden? OMG..the whole page must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.141.79 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Gujarat was not a genocide

Gujarat riots were riots they were not genocide. 2000 Muslims dies but India has 150 million of them, it is hardly a genocide. Moreover these were riots between two communitites not a state planned (or executed) "genocide".

Wow! Thats like saying Stalin killed a 100 000 Russians at once but thats okay because there were 120 million of them. A genocide is a mass murder, and many will consider this to be exactly that because there were people employed by the state (i.e. police and army officers) involved in the killings. --Anonymous editor 17:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Genocide means the deliberate destruction of a social identity, not mass murder per se. Killing the last six members of a people is genocide, but killing a few hundred of a population of many millions is mass murder. E.g. the Holocaust can be termed as an attempted genocide. --Germen 12:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Then the question should be whether the Gujarat riots were an attempt to destroy the social identity of Muslims within that state or not. Which, I'm guessing, is up to a matter of debate.--T-Boy 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Skeleton outline

Omegatron said "this article has a very "skeleton outline" feel. the empty headings should be deleted if they do not get content in a few days." I disagree with the latter, but definitely agree that this needs more content... - Mustafaa 23:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire article is screaming with POV. "Muslim persecution in Spain" without even mentioning the Muslim invasion of Spain or the long campaign of warfare the Muslims used to conquer and convert the pennisula. An armed response to an invasion is not persecution! It cannot be logically equalled to say, the Holocaust were a peaceful ethnic minority were made scapegoats and killed or where Christians were fed to the Lions. "Muslim persecution during the Crusades" - The Crusades were an armed response to the Muslim persecution of Christian pilgrims. While the Crusaders slaughtering the Muslims in Jerusalem was wrong (in my POV), an action like that is more like total warfare, not persecution. That's like saying the massive bombing of Dresden, Germany in WWII, was persecution of Germans.Barneygumble 15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you believe that a program of forced conversions and expulsions of an already conquered minority is an "armed response to an invasion" that took place 800 years earlier? I suppose if the modern Welsh started kidnapping English children and raising them to speak Welsh, or expelling Englishmen and confiscating all their property, you would call that their "armed response" to the English invasion of Wales 800 years ago. - Mustafaa 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Scottish were fighting with the English from long before William Wallace up until the Young Pretender was finally defeated. England invaded several times. Even today the Scots still dislike the English. Today people have a democratic political process. The Scottish Independence Party seeks Scottish independence. If they ever got enough votes, they could vote themselves out of Great Britian. Regardless... you do have a point in way. However, although events surrounding and leading up to the Spanish Inquisition were obviously persecution, a sentence or two of context leading up to the time period would create for a better NPOV. For example, in 1946, the Czechs expelled all Germans from Czechoslovakia. That was "persecution of Germans" although discussing it, without mentioning the Munich Conference, WWII, and the Sudenland would be improper. Barneygumble 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Events of less than a decade before, as in your Czech example, can certainly be argued to constitute necessary context; if you can think of any missing information about the events leading up to Granada's conquest, say, that could be relevant. Events of 800 years earlier, however, have nothing to do with it. Even the Granadan kingdom itself wasn't founded until many centuries later, when Christians already had the upper hand in the peninsula. - Mustafaa 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is a longer time doesn't change the necessity to include the historical context. How is the Czechs expelling Germans (because of German invasion) any different the Spanish expelling the Moors (because of their invasion)? Just because it was several hundred years didn't change Spanish resentment. It's a strong POV not to include any background. Any comments on my Crusade arguement? Barneygumble 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because it was several hundred years didn't change Spanish resentment. You claim, then, that "Spanish resentment" at the events of 800 years ago led to the events described here. This is a testable hypothesis; if it were true, their persecution would have been confined to Muslims alone. In reality, the Spanish did the same thing to the Jews at the same time, so you argument holds no water. Frankly, you might as sensibly throw in an explanation of the Roman conquest, or for that matter a paragraph on the Castilians' suppression of the Mozarabic rite of the southern Christians. Every event has an infinite amount of "background", but most of it is simply not relevant.

As for the Crusades - what argument? The Crusaders had conquered Jerusalem; it was their territory, not the enemy's. And again, your suggestion's flaw is shown by the fact that they killed the Jewish civilians there as well as the Muslim ones, proving that military considerations were the last thing in their mind as they butchered the inhabitants. - Mustafaa 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Crusaders actually warmed up on Jewish civilians in their own countries first, and by the 4th Crusade they were actually sacking Christian cities (e.g. Constantinople) instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Of course, the Christian cities they sacked were Eastern Orthodox, so I guess in their mind that fit into the general scheme of killing people of different religions - though the 4th Crusade's work was more about Venetian profits than anything else. - Mustafaa 00:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

China

Would you mind not including the Qing dynasty. There was no persecution of Muslims during the Qing. There is no evidence of Muslims being persecuted, nor does this article even try to provide some. It remains an unsibstantiated allegation. Which is not very nice. If someone comes up with some evidence then it can be put back, but at the moment it just sits there. Is there any reason to keep it at all? Lao Wai 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's easy enough to find sources that say there was (I'm not sure offhand how reliably.) However, until the China section is written, I don't see any particular point to having an empty subsection. - Mustafaa 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well that would depend on how you define persecution. If by that you mean the Qing government suppressed uprisings by Islamic extremists, then, well, perhaps. But the Qing did not start those rebellions. They did not persecute the Hui. There were no laws restricting Islamic practice or teaching. The Hui remained privileged in law during the Qing right up to the end. Admittedly some Muslims seem to feel oppressed simply because they lived in a country ruled by pagans, but that is not quite the same as oppression as most people would see it. Lao Wai 10:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbolic statements, hence POV tag

Muslims in Israel are discriminated against to some extent, but calling this persecution is hyperbolic and non-NPOV. The same can be said about Muslims in Europe and the United States. They are sometimes discriminated by non-Muslims (against government policy), but not persecuted. The exception is of course Bosnia-Hercegovina during the nineties.

Discrimination is included in Persecution of Christians and in Persecution of Jews. Why should this article be the exception? - Mustafaa 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I do not object to include discrimination in Persecution of Muslims, but I object to describe mere discrimination as persecution, as (as far as I know) there are no cases of Israeli citizenship holding Muslims being tortured or murdered. There are some cases of discrimination, though. The recommended way thus would be referring to the subsection as "discrimination of Muslims in Israel". The repression of the Palestines in the occupied territories does not seem to be religiously motivated (because secular, Christian as well as Muslim Palestinians receive the same treatment). --Germen 08:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See Kafr Qasim massacre. It is perfectly possible (indeed, typical) for religious discrimination to be directed even-handedly at members of all religions other than the oppressor's own: the litmus test would be if Palestinian Jews and Samaritans were treated like other Palestinians (reductio ad absurdum!.) However, the Israel-Palestine issue is a difficult case, because ethnic, religious, and nationalistic motivations seem almost inextricably merged - and, when the section is written, it will have to take this confusion into account. - Mustafaa 23:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this incident is a clear case of persecution. I am not sure whether this is religious persecution or not as there were no religious reasons, except Zionist-nationalist motivations, cited. Also it seemed to have been an incident with a single perpetrator. Are there more cases of persecution of Israeli Arabs (e.g. harassment, violence, murder etc.?) --Germen 11:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

POV: many instances of war or civil war are represented as persecution, e.g. the civil war in Lebanon. The Crusades were not persecution themselves, only the atrocities of Crusadfers qualify like persecution. Also, references are missing. I have marked the first five. This article needs a major fact and NPOV upgrade. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I removed the tag on the religious conflict and Islam page specifically in relation to this. Don't engage in double-standards, you can't have a tag on one and no tags on the other. The Lebanese Civil War was definitely an example of religious persecution as people were killed just because they were Shi'ite/Sunni/Greek Orthodox/Maronite and for NO other reason than that.Heraclius 18:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed that tag because the problems were solved or localized in subparagraphs. Neither happened here. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you least explain why the persecution by Muslims should be included in the first sentence? That has nothing to do with this article, and it's already present in the see also section.Heraclius 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Violence begets violence. A major reason why Muslims were persecuted is the previous persecution by them, and vise versa, e.g. in Lebanon, Bosnia, Spain. For this reason, addition of that subsentence will balance the article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at all the other persecution articles. Do any of them have a similar sentence to the one you're adding?Heraclius 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I explicitly added this sentence to the Persecution by Muslims] article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I am just a passer-by but surely that is a non-sequitur. It may be that Muslims are a special case. It may be that it is true in this case but not in others. Or it may not. The only valid question is whether it is true or not. And I suspect it is not. Polytheistic religions tend not to go in for persecution. Monotheistic ones do. Even though there has been a long and gradual world-wide trend for the latter to eliminate the former, the former still do not persecute the latter as a general rule. So it is unlikely that the Muslims attract any real level of persecution just because they persecute. So it does not belong because it is not true and can't be sourced anyway. Lao Wai 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao, recent history proves otherwise. All the 20th century incidents of Muslim persecution followed persecution by Muslims, e.g. in Bosnia, India, Israel and the Occupied Territories, discrimination of Muslim after the 11 September attacks. Counterexamples in which Muslims were persecuted which did not persecute others are welcome. As a second argument: not all religions are agressive, e.g. Buddhists will not persecute others as well as many Christians and pagan religions. If Muslims persecute them, they will not persecute Muslims in return. So your non-sequitur is a farce. In addition: I just give arguments here for including a reference to persecution by Muslims. Including information needs not top be sourced, only the information itself need to be sourced. Please refer to the applicable Wikipedia policy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The riots in India were a response to a terrorist attack on a train carrying women and children. The death of 800 Muslims in onw town where 250 hindus were also killed does not count as persecution.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

Sources for many parts of this article are missing. Several problem statements have been marked. Can anyone source those?

Should we add a section: "Israeli persecution of Muslims"

Should we add a section: "Israeli persecution of Muslims"? I think we should somewhere mention Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, and its policies (of land confiscations, home demolitions, extra-judicial assasinations, jailing for long periods of time, the WALL, denying access to farms and wells etc.). If it is ok, I can prepare a setion. Bless sins 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of it. Faz90 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they persecuted for their Muslim beliefs? Does Israel "persecute" Muslim Palestinians but not Christian Palestinians? Are there reliable sources for any of this? Can you ensure that the section will not consist simply of original research? If not, then the section would not belong here, and, in fact, would contravene Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

True you must show reported facts about specific denial of life BECAUSE of islamic belief. Also you must show that if water is denied in the palestinian terriotories then it must also be denied to muslims in isreali lands, which it isnt. There is no persecution to propagate the fact is to spread anti-semitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.94.2.9 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV: Secular Western persecution of Muslims

Not only is the major part of this section totally not connected to the persecution of Muslims (but rather explaning the 9/11 attacks), the part that is, is biased and unreferenced. 1652186 14:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The section is in need of a major overhaul. I'll try to add and remove bits and make it more relevant. Amibidhrohi 15:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

muslims killed by muslims??

Should this page include muslims killed by muslims? It would have been better if they discussed muslims killed by others rather than muslims killed by fellow muslims.nids 07:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. We shouild remove the Self discrimination section. Rustyfence (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this from the introduction

Earlier muslim persecution of Buddhists and Hindus during the islamic wars of conquest in the Indian subcontinent, where many Buddhists/Hindus were forcibly converted, enslaved or killed, have given rise to hostility against muslims in India. Similar similar cases have been seen in the Balkans and during the middle ages in Spain, where earlier islamic persecution of christians have in recent times given rise to discontent with muslims.

This is quite disgusting ! It says in fact that killing or persecuting Muslims is totally comprehensible because of what their great-great-grandfathers did. Imagine a black man in the US excusing his criminal behaviour against whites because of slavery in the past !!! 85.90.69.35 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move

I suggest this article be moved to something like "prejudice again Muslims". Many of th sources don't exactly deal with "persecution". This is a better alternative than deleting it.Bless sins 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish there was a neutral word that summed up "discrimination", "hatred" and "prejudice" towards Muslims. Not Islamophobia, since it is recent.Bless sins 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, "anti-Muslim sentiment".Bless sins 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I think we should really investigate the idea of doing so. Padishah5000 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for obvious reasons. This move would just be an attempt to divert the criticisms against Islamophobia (an article which already exists), and pretend they are irrelevant. Anything useful in this article really should be moved to Islamophobia, and this article should be deleted, and/or redirected same as Historical persecution by Muslims.--Sefringle^Talk 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. the topic is valid. If something is from other topic, move the text into proper article. Mukadderat 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

American Persecution?

I don't know if I'm missing another article, or if it is hidden in here, but I see no mention of the persecution of muslims in the USA (especially following 9/11). I remember reports of the assault of muslims and mistakened muslims (sikhs) following 9/11. Again, if this has already been covered, then don't mind this topic, but if not, we should get started! Canutethegreat 05:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Crimea ancestral homeland of muslims?!

I noticed this and i do remember that Crimea was more "ancestrals" to greeks(in the south with Chersonesos) and slavs(in the north) than to the muslims . In it`s entire existence(of less then 300 years witch makes that "ancestral" look silly) the Crimean Khanate we cannot know wheter the slavs(ukrainians or otherwise) or the tatars were the ones how made the bulk of the population=> deleting this portion AdrianCo (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo

The Volga and the Ural are even more phantasmagoric,Khazan lasted for less then 150 years people! In general we could speak of some level of persecution(or in most cases defence) agains tatars,but agains muslims,not likely!AdrianCo (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo

Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey

The present section Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey is a disgrace to the encyclopedia; it is written from an Islamist point-of-view and consists of little more than distortions, which (for obvious reasons) are not supported by citations from reliable published sources. Unless someone manages to make something reasonable out of this in a reasonable period of time (but it will be hard to find any source that describes the former ban on headscarfs in universities as "persecution" – we don't call the same in France maybe "Islamophobia" but not "persecution" either), it would seem best if the whole section is removed.  --Lambiam 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What about

Israel's secular jewish pesecution of muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.125.168 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You need sources to say that. These sources need to specifically say "persecution". No House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, West Bank separation barrier, nor apartheid count as "persecution", unless this is stated by a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Persecution"

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Muslims, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ThePersecution.org

Is [1] a reliable source? I saw no evidence of reliability on its home page. Many of its pages don't even have names of authors on them. I don't think its reliable, but I'd like to hear other opinions.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia in the U.S.

I think there should def. be a section on the widespread islamphobia in the United States such as the mono stereo type that all muslims are terriosts and are violent and have weapons etc,etc. I think it is of notable importance as there is a lot of xenophobia since 9/11. Oh and I am not a Muslim so don't say I am being biased. 68.45.219.63 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (C6541 IP)

Islamophobia, however deplorable, does not by itself constitute persecution. Any such section should be in our article on Islamophobia. However, per the policies on verifiability and writing from a WP:neutral point of view, incorporating this as content in Wikipedia requires reliable sources reporting on the phenomenon. Without such sources, we can't do anything.  --Lambiam 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is also a question of how widespread Islamophobia truly is in the US. While it no doubt exists, and there are many right wing pundits who indulge in anti-muslim rhetoric, the majority of people appear careful to make a distinction between moderate Muslims and Muslim Terrorists. In fact, it is fairly common to hear people insert that qualifier in when talking about the subject. I also think your characterization of the stereotype is somewhat off. I have yet to meet anyone who honestly believes all muslims are terrorists. Usually the argument goes Most Terrorist are Muslim. Which is still innacurate and steroetyping. But different from saying all Muslims are terrorists. LynnCityofsin (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article has a strong Islamic POV. The Yugoslav wars was not a religious massacre, it was an ethnic and nationalistic struggle to maintain Serbian dominance in the region. I removed some stupid language like "Of course".

What is the Book of Revelation doing in the First Crusade section? Who cares if it has a section similar to a blood bath - this Christian book has nothing to do with the Crusades, but more to do with the end of the world.

Muslims were not "raped, murdered and forcibly converted" in Sicily. The Normans continued to use Arabs as skilled and useful administrators. The Sultan of Tunis supplied 4000 Arab archers to the Kingdom of Sicily against its wars against the Papacy.

I have removed the above uncited nonsense.

Gabr-el 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Persecutions of Muslims during Crusades

This section needs to be re-written. It is true that Muslims were persecuted in that they were forced to pay extra taxes to live in Jerusalem etc. But to suggest that they were wiped out entirely is false, since at the Siege of Jerusalem (1187), Balian of Ibelin held the Muslims in Jerusalem hostage as a negotiating chip against Saladin's initial rejection of terms.

Now, we need to get rid of the 1099 Massacre of Jerusalem - in what shape or form is this persecution? Persecution is a term that does not entail itself to a short term military event in war. Rather, it is a pogrom aimed at wiping out that ideology.

It would be just as ridiculous to call the Fall of Constantinople as persecution of Christians by Muslims, or every Christian city in the Balkans that fell before the Turks. Gabr-el 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sicily

Considering that the Norman Kings of Sicily spoke Arabic fluently and allowed Arabs to take up positions in adminstration, it is absurd to suggest that they were "raped, murdered etc." The article History of Islam in Southern Italy contradicts these claims. Gabr-el 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mongol persecution of Muslims

This section says that the Mongols never persecuted the Muslims, but that they attacked Muslims for purely military reasons. Well, if this is the case, what on earth is it doing in an article of which it is not a part of the title!?Gabr-el 05:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims in China

Again, this is not persecution. Killing rebels and enforcing reprisals is not a persecution of a religion, but a tactical move by the ruling government to end the rebellion, regardless of creed or faith in Islam. Gabr-el 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit seems to be atleast partially unjustified. The user removes sentences like "A police investigation revealed that no cow had been slaughtered in the village" or "an estimated 50-200,000 Muslims are believed to have been killed" are certainly sourced.

Ofcourse I remind editors to assure that the source is talking about persecution of Muslims (no killing Muslims is not the same as persecuting them).Bless sins (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey (2)

The newly added section Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey is egregiously non-neutral in content and formulation, and virtually all claims made are distortions of the facts. In my opinion the best is to simply remove this section, but I don't want to start an edit war with the responsible editor, who has accused me of making unconstructive edits that appear to constitute vandalism.  --Lambiam 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For an overview of the issues, see the tags on this earlier identical version. None of the issues marked was ever resolved. See also Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey above on this talk page.  --Lambiam 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was such an eye sore I stopped reading the biased nonsense and removed the entire section. We can add in the relevant bits and facts later. In Islam, seperate of religion and state is not an acceptable concept (except for Islamic anarchism. Nonetheless, this is not religious persecution, since the State of Turkey is not limiting the powers of a religious group because of its particular religion, but because it is a religion. Gabr-el 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely tendentious. That section needs to stay gone. Aramgar (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem massacre

The section on the massacre of the entire population of Jerusalem upon capture by the Crusaders says:

"On May 7, 1099 the crusaders reached Jerusalem (...) On July 15, the crusaders were able to end the siege by breaking down sections of the walls and entering the city. Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. (...)

Nonetheless, it was the norm of the time to put the population of the city to the sword if it resisted a siege.[6] In the heat of the battle, soldiers would make no distinction between civilian and combatant. Furthermore, it is likely that many of the combatants defending Jerusalem were inhabitants. Some Jews were captured and ransomed to Cairo[7]. In any case, the Crusaders were severly short of manpower by this stage of the campaign, having no more than 12,000 men. Given the limited siege weaponry of the Crusaders, they would had to have concentrated their forces on a few sections of the city; thus, it is highly improbable that they had the manpower to kill every inhabitant of Jerusalem."

I have some problems with the last paragraph, which looks quite POV:

- Was massacring the population really the norm? I think this is not what Muslims did when they took Jerusalem back later...? It seems to me it was the norm for the Crusaders, not for the other peoples of the region at that time.

- The massacre wasn't "in the heat of the battle", it was after the city surrendered, once the battle was over, in cool blood.

- The phrase that questions the historicity of the account should be provided with a good source or deleted. I never heard of an account of the capture of Jerusalem, regardless of the source being Christian or Muslim, that said the population wasn't massacred. If the revisionist theory is more than a Christian apologist's whims, the historian having proposed it must be named.

In answering your response:

1) Jerusalem never surrendered. It was taken down, in the heat of battle.
2) Massacring the population of a city that did not Surrender or offered resistance is the norm. Many Muslim leaders found it PERFECTLY Normal to massacre the following cities:

• Edessa in 1144, all Westerners put to the sword.
• Antioch 1268, 100,000 Armenian Christians massacred
• Constantinople 1453 - 3 days of pillaging by Mehmets army

Steven Runciman says in his "The Fall of Constantinople, 1453":

"The conquering army is allowed three days of unrestricted pillage; and the former places of worship, with every other building, become the property of the conquering leader; he may dispose of them as he pleases. Sultan Mehmet [after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 allowed] his soldiers the three days of pillage to which they were entitled. They poured into the city...They slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination.. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets...But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profits."

3) Read --> Madden, Thomas (2005). Crusades The Illustrated History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P. pp. p. 162.  For a more balanced view on Jerusalem's fate. It talks about the living Saracens carrying the dead. So then obviously some Muslims were left alive.

The only Apologetic and POV viewpoint put forward is that the Middle Eastern powers of the time were suddenly and unfairly attacked by "Savage infidel Christians".

Gabr-el 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RSS as extremist Hindu organization

Both sources directly support the description given of RSS, but Banksenergy (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the description [2]. The removal remains quite unjustified, so please present a defense or else it will be reinstated to the article. Chedorlaomer (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See poisoning the well. Third party descriptions bias the article in favor of a certain viewpoint and is not WP:NPOV. Notice that the Jamaat-e-Islami is never referred to always as an "extremist Muslim organization".Banksenergy (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well? We describe RSS participation in the massacres, noting that it is an Hindu extremist organization with Fascist tendencies. To poison the well we would present negative information ahead of time in order to discredit a statement or action of the group that by itself does not look bad. In this case, the item already looks bad (participation in massacres), so if anything, noting that RSS is an extremist Hindu organization protects the reputation of mainstream Hindus. It really is the opposite of poisoning the well. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The "fascist tendencies" is highly disputed, and is the very definition of poisoning the well. The interesting thing is that if someone were to keep adding this descriptor to Jamaat-e-Islami (even though hundreds of scholars have described them as fascist) then the wikipedia thought police would start sending them death threats.Banksenergy (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of muslim family

This picture is just pan-turkist propoganda.

Article scope

As all "persecution" or "discrimination" articles, this one of course also attracts the "more-persecuted-than-thou" editors.

Please make up your mind. If you want to discuss all instances of mild "anti-Islamic sentiment", retitle the article to anti-Islamic sentiment or something. If you want to keep it under "persecution of Muslims", however, kindly keep it restricted to discussing actual persecution (as in, the state, some paramilitary outfit, or lynch-mobs coming after you because of your religion). Including things like "somebody made a funny face at a Muslim once" under "persecution" is an insult to anybody suffering actual persecution. --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims in Switzerland

since "the minaret ban" removes the religious freedom of Muslims, the persecution of Muslims in Switzerland is a rational section. the section is sorced on BBC and Reuters reports. the Religious persecution article justifies that any action opposing religious freedom is persecution. persecution does not necessarily require beating and or torture.

see another new article regarding ban and opposing religous freedom: [3]

the section is definitely Neutral, well sourced and Should Stay. it can't and isn't straying.

--78.162.165.41 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To repeat the arguments given to you on the main article's talkpage, it is not "persecuation," since praying has not been made illegal, neither has building mosques been banned, nor has anyone been arrested for being a Muslim. The (proposed) Swiss law simply bans the construction of minnarets. If you would like to add this section to a differnt article, say, for example, "discrimination" or "building-codes", I won't stop you. However, in this article, it is misplaced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

as i clearly depicted the case even though "no eyes were reading" and "no minds were understandin"; minaret is an inseparable part of a mosque. there is no difference between banning the construction of minaret and burning all Qurans and banning reading it. --78.162.165.41 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

running word games for hiding the persecution is the same quality that minaret banners possess.--78.162.165.41 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

See Also section

I've added links to Religious Persecution and persecution of other religions to the see also section of the page. This is in line with Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Jews. Initially these were removed by User:Arjun024 without comment. However, I feel there is a decent possibility someone reading about the persecution of Muslims may be interested in reading about the persecution of other religions or religious persecution in general. If the links I added were only vaguely related I could understand their removal. However, these are not only on-topic, but the same topic and cover the same material. I've directed Arjun024 here to discuss the change (to avoid an 'edit war'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.205.31 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922

I have added a link to the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922. The article in its initial stages covering the plight of Ottoman Muslims between 1821 – 1922 in which according to the scholar Justin McCarty around five and a half million Muslims were driven out of Europe and five million more were killed or died of disease and starvation. --Hittit (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is being constatly redirected here is a link to a working version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922&oldid=360959487 --Hittit (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

Grandmaster, removing genocides and replacing it with massacres does not fix the many problems with this addition. First, the many massacres remains controversial, the figure of 12,000 remains controversial. The 366 regiment is claimed to be directly involved in the massacres. Those are few of the controversial additions. Also, none of the materials is supported by sources which indicate that those happened because they were Muslim. Be careful, you are very quick at reverting. Ionidasz (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The 366 was directly involved, see HRW. And those killed were Muslim. I see no reason for your revert. Grandmaster 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Show me where, the HRW claims that the 366 regiment was directly involved in the massacres. Also please read what I wrote, I wrote provide evidences that they were killed as Muslims, killed because they were Muslims and not because of a territorial conflict. Ionidasz (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I did, not so long ago, on talk of another article. At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [4] And the people killed were all Muslims. Grandmaster 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This was according to the refugees, there was no independent confirmation of that. Besides, you still keep repeating they were Muslim, when I keep asking that you provide evidences that any of those was the result of them being Muslim. Ionidasz (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The independent confirmation comes from HRW. They do not refer to anyone, they conducted their own investigation and made their conclusions. Grandmaster 18:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, they interviewed refugees. Besides, you have not provided any evidences that any of those actions were caused because they were Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

They interviewed a lot of people on both sides, and conducted their own investigation. It is their conclusion. And HRW is a neutral source. Also, the people who were killed were Muslim. This article is not just about the religious persecution, it is about persecution in general. Check the examples in the article, not all the instances mentioned were on religious grounds. Grandmaster 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention any other unjustifiable case to support this one. Besides, the Kossovo case has shown how HRW witnesses reports can misrepresent reality, as they even reported it themselves. when it is claimed that there is an independent source for an event, it is meant that there is an independent observation. And the section if full leaves a lot to be desired. The figure, the claim that they were victim of various massacres and that the 366 was directly involved in massacres (which was never confirmed to begin with). Ionidasz (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

improper redirect from "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922"

It looks like the original article was intended to discuss the crimes committed against Muslims and Turks during the Ottoman times. Now it is a more general subject which is persecution of Muslims. Why not create a separate wiki for "persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922"? A starting entry could be this: Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922 Can someone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.22.83 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, because the content of that is already covered in other articles. Merging all the info will fail WP:SYNTH..., because events are unconnected. Also, there is no particular event which justify separating the Muslim subjects from non-Muslims as it was the case for the Armenian genocide. Ionidasz (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually currently in the artcile talk page there are 6 for the merge and 6 against the merge therefore as it is the merge is not in a majority favour. Hittit (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the procedure to undo the redirect? Robert Willie (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't, 13 votes for delete..., there was a clear majority for its deletion. Even the neutral keep supported the merge. If you undo it, it will be resubmitted for deletion. Ionidasz (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article Persecution of Muslims has really become extremely large and in its current form does not fully serve Wikipedia Readers in the best possible way. Many sections can easily be turned into their own articles. For those interested on working on Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922 are most welcome. The article in questions has now been redicrected to Persecution of Muslims, the redirect vote is at a tie and editor input is needed.Hittit (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you increase that section here first? That move will cause edit wars, and probably you'll lose the edit war. Kavas (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Anatolian Massacres

I am trying add a new subsection which goes as follows:

- ===Anatolia===

-

Genocide Monument and Museum in Igdir

During the First World War many Muslim people (Turkish and Kurdish) were killed by Armenians in eastern Anatolia (including Bayburt, Bitlis, Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars and Mus), and by Greeks in western Anatolia (including Izmir, Manisa and Usak). These happened during the Anatolia campaign of Greece when they occupied parts of western Anatolia and Russian campaign of eastern Anatolia with the help of Armenian paramilitary forces (see Turkish Independence War).

- - "Igdir Massacre Monument and Museum" ("Iğdır Soykırım Anıt-Müzesi") is dedicated to Kurdish and Turkish victims of the atrocities (see Igdir).

Ionidasz, you have deleted this subsection twice although I have told you to discuss or talk to me about this. Can you please let me know what don't you like? I am trying to add neutral resources to support the claims. Please discuss it here first before undoing it. Let us try to reach a consensus. Robert Willie (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I have removed your request for a Third Opinion from the list at the Third Opinion Project. I'm sorry but, per the instructions on the Third Opinion project page, Third Opinions are not available for issues where there has been no discussion on the talk page. You might want to consider the Content Noticeboard or a Request for Comments as an alternative. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Also, there used to be a wiki entry which discussed this material. Check out Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922. It got directed to this entry somehow and after sometime most of its content disappeared. Robert Willie (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought I might add my thoughts, for what they are worth... While your sources are probably good, you might give some thought to the language you have used. While there may be no doubt that what happened was terrible (though I'm making no comment either way), perhaps it would be best to find alternate words to genocide and attrocities. The events may have meant exactly those things but these are words which are emotive and ring alarm bells for wiki editors. If you use words like this without quoting someone or without very strong sources to back it up comprehensively, people will instantly jump to quote WP:NPOV.

Instead, list the facts and let readers make decisions for themselves. You don't need to use the word genocide if it's proceeded by a sentence which says one group killed x hundreds of thousands of another group. It is implied. Wiki editors will also jump to delete content when the source of your content is called, A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility. It is a very unfortunate title for a book if it is trying to present a factual point of view. Try to find a different source or temper the language you use to introduce it. You'll find if you write things on a factual basis (rather than an emotive one) and back it up with factual, relatively neutral sources, other editors will quite happily accept your contributions. Remember, Wikipedia is a source of facts, not a source of opinions. Present your facts and let people form their own opinions. That can often be more powerful that telling them to think something. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

England

There is a sentence backed up backed a source. It is followed by another sentence that starts "Other Islamophobic incidents mentioned in the report ...." but the reference given at the end of the sentence is not to "the report" but to a Guardian article written by the authors of "the report" in which they mention the report.

Also how do the authors distinguish between someone attacked for their religion and someone attacked because of their skin colour? How for example do the people who wrote the paper identify that Ekram Haque was attacked because of his religion and not his skin colour? They do not do so in the Guardian article and instead write ""race-hate"" in double quotes implying that they do not think that racial hatred but religious hatred was the motive, but they give no evidence of this in the newspaper article. -- PBS (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Muslim-on-Muslim violence

Why are Muslim-on-Muslim wars listed on this page? Does a war always mean Persecution ? I cannot understand how Ottoman-Persian wars and Ottoman-Saudi wars are examples of Persecution of Muslims, these are political struggles. (Some can relate these wars to violence between different mazhabs, but in general the combatants fight in order to gain land, i.e. Baghdad) This list is short if we list Muslim-Muslim wars, why do we not include Ottoman Interregnum? It is also a Muslim-Muslim violence, the sons of Bayezid I is fighting against each other, but what is the need of listing all Muslim-on-Muslim wars here ? For example, North Yemen Civil War is a war between different ideologies, it has nothing to do with religious violence. Kavas (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted some of them. You have to prove why these wars are examples of Persecution of Muslims. If you cannot prove I can add many other wars between Muslims in history. Kavas (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel?

Arabs and Muslims have and continue to face very harsh discrimination within Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

This seems like a loaded statement. Lumping Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank together is a little dishonest. If this section is to remain there needs to be a relatively neutral source that refers to a systematic persecution of Muslims in any part of "Israel." I know inequalities exist but not to the point of "very harsh standards." The mosques were vandalized by Israeli settlers, not an event sanctioned by the state of Israel. How many hate crimes have been committed against Muslims who live in Israel? Not all Arabs are Muslims so the sentence is dishonest. Social inequalities are more pronounced when comparing Muslims/secular Jews. Ultimately haredi Jews face more discrimination in society than Israeli Muslims. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, theres plenty of sources statements as such. Feel free to counter source anything, no reason to remove.

At any rate, that fella convicted of having sex because he said he was jewish and wasnt was criticised as such racial/religious bias both WITHIN and without the countryLihaas (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkey

The material related with Turkey is moved to persection of Muslims page. As Marshal Bagramyan says "Following the rather weak and pathetic decision (and the amusing excuses that accompanied it) to actually keep this sorry excuse for an article, the most logical solution now seems to me to move this to its most relevant page: Persecution of Muslims", I think the result of the discussion was to move the material. If the material is not neutral, or the material should be moved to a seperate page, you can do it. But, I object to the deletion of the material, without trying to improve it or move it. Kavas (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the massacres in European and Anatolian Turkey are seperated to make it suitable for this page. Kavas (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba mosque

This should be included, plenty or source in criticism to suggest Islamophobia.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars-Nazi Collaboration

The article states that the deportation of Crimean Tatars was based on the "facts" of Collaborationism... It's extremely problematic to speak of the facts in the era of Stalinism, especially as presented by the NKVD... Numerous western scholars and Crimean tatars will will dispute this; Crimean Tatars were deployed to the front, and many others participated in Partisan resistance. There is also a lot of scholarship on Stalin's Islamaphobia. I researching the issue, but if someone has a source at hand, please consider taking a look at this section. 136.244.70.205 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of tolerance

I suspect one of the main reasons Islam has such low regard in much of the "west" is down to lack of tolerance of "disrespect" by (some) followers of Islam. If a persons beliefs are strong such disrespect (from a westerners viewpoint) would be disregarded, as irrelevant & not worthy of attention. So when someone (from any group) resorts to violence to suppress/silence the negative comments it is viewed as "too weak a belief system to accept negative comments." So when a news paper says "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" and the news paper then get fire bombed by Muslims the west says "well there you go, we were right."....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.71.33 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula

Could someone knowledgeable take a closer look at the section called "Iberian Peninsula"? I noticed that it contained a couple of errors, including a rather fundamental misrepresentation of a source (Jews were mistaken for Muslims). I made some corrections myself, but the section may contain more such mistakes. Iblardi (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)