Talk:Antisemitism in Islam

This article was nominated for deletion on July 4 2006. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).

relevance for spain section

What the golden age of the Jews has to do with anitsemitism is very unclear, so I am terefor adding the relevance tag to that section. Yahel Guhan 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is cited by scholars as examples of lack of antisemitism in the Muslim world.Bless sins 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It isn't. It is cited by you as lack of antisemitism. Besides, if it were cited as an example of lack of antisemitism, the scholar would specificly say something along the lines of "what happened in spain is an example of how muslims weren't antisemitic", which no scholar currently mentioned says. If I am wrong, please provide the exact quote. Yahel Guhan 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source? If not I won't bother, because, in theory you can dispute every source on this page forcing me to spend hours in the library typing paragraphs up.Bless sins 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, I have seen what the source is called. Again, I am saying the way it is presented within this article, relevance is not established? Do I need to clarify this point further? Yahel Guhan 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the sources for the section.

1. Poliakov (1974), pg.91-6
2. Frederick M. Schweitzer, Marvin Perry., Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312165617, pp. 267-268.
3. Granada by Richard Gottheil, Meyer Kayserling, Jewish Encyclopedia. 1906 ed.
4. The Forgotten Refugees
5. The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries
6. Kraemer, Joel L., Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides pp. 16-17 (2005)
7. Maimonides, ‘’Epistle to the Jews of Yemen”, translated in Stillman (1979), pp. 241–242
8. Mark R. Cohen (1995) p. xvii-xviii

Tell me which one you have a problem with.Bless sins 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a problem. Sources 3 and 4 don't mention "antisemitism" as motive at all.Bless sins 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify my point. Does Poliakov specificly say something along the lines of "the golden age in spain is an example of how muslims weren't antisemitic?" If so, provide the quote. Otherwise it is irrelevnat, and its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH. Yahel Guhan 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We are back to the original argument. If Poliakov doesn't mention antisemitism in the same sentence/paragraph, then, according to you, it's not antisemitism. I think we need to establish some criteria over what is related to antisemitism and what is not.

My proposal: any source that makes a discussion in the context of "antisemitism" should be considered relevant. Examples include sources (articles, books, chapters of books) that are entirely on antisemitism, or sources that try to make an argument about antisemitism. Ofcourse they have to be relevant to Islam as well.

Let's see you propose some criteria.Bless sins 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal, is anything written in a book which happens to have antisemitism within the title is somehow relevant to that topic, which is not the case at all.

My proposal: It is relevant only if the source specificly states x as related to antisemitism (or synnomym for antisemitism like anti-judaism, persecution of jews, etc.). It should be clear from the source that x is related to antisemitism. Background given by a source is not relevant.Yahel Guhan 03:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SO let's be clear here. Must the word "antisemitism" be mentioned in the same paragraph? Does it suffice that the author declares the entire book is on antisemitism and then doesn't use it regularly throughout?Bless sins 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

antisemitism or a synnomym. Not everything in a book with "antisemitism" in the title is relevant. Some things are, some things are not, and saying otherwise is a major hasty generalization. Title does not mean subject. If a scholar thinks some event is specificly related to antisemitism, he/she would say how it relates if it is not blatantly obvious (like persecutions and hate crimes). The relevance of the Golden age of Spain is not blatently obvious, so if it really is related in any manner to antisemitism, some scholar has got to have explained so somewhere; a situation which hasn't been proven yet. Thus it is not related according to scholarly views. Yahel Guhan 03:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that the literature on community relations in medieval Spain is extensive.Itsmejudith 09:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again you are avoiding the real questions by making vague explanations. What is "blatantly obvious" supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be mean, perhaps, whatever is "blatantly obvious to Yahel Guhan"? What are synonyms and antonyms for antisemitism? "Antisemitism" is a common word, so I see no reason for a scholar to avoid it.Bless sins 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

By blatently obvious, I mean it specificly discusses persecution of jews. Synnomyms for antiesmitism are anti-judaism, persecution of Jews, hatrid of jews, prejudice of jews, etc. Yahel Guhan 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the same reasoning antonyms for antisemitism will be "Judeophilia", "tolerance of Jews", "respect for Jews", "praise for Jews" etc.Bless sins 03:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

None of which are terms Polakov is using to describe muslim spain. If I am wrong, please provide the quote. Yahel Guhan 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Providing_quotations.Bless sins 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on what you said, it is char that Polakov himself did not establish relevance, but rather you took his words and liked it, and just assumed it was relevant because of the title. This is improper logic, as title does not equal subject. Thus it isn't relevant to the topic. Yahel Guhan 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding of what I read, Poliakov was discussing antisemitism. Besides the entire book is about antisemitism, so what's the problem?Bless sins 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the entire book is not about antisemitism. Much of the book is about historical and ideological background, and the subject of the book is more accurately history of the jews, rather than antisemitism. I am basing my conclusions on what you wrote as the summary, and that does not convey any relevance. Yahel Guhan 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse the entire book is not about this topic. The parts of the book that discuss "Judeophilia", "tolerance of Jews", "respect for Jews", "praise for Jews" are certainly relevant. You know Yahel, if you don't trust that I'm correct, go get the book yourself. I know its difficult, but its difficult for me too.Bless sins 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it isn't all relevant. At least we are making progress here. What that means, is we must determine what is relevant and how it is relevant. And based on what you have mentioned so far, neither of those points are clear from reading that section of the article, and it is pretty clear that Polakov himself doesn't establish relevance of the Spain section; rather Bless sins wants it included, and claims it is relevant even though it isn't. Yahel Guhan 01:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, ofcourse, the parts of the book that don't discuss anything about Jews or Muslims (or Islam or Judaism) won't be relevant. As far as I know the only parts of the book that won't be relevant are: parts that discuss European antisemitism, or the introduction and preface.Bless sins 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The formula for relevance isn't that black and white. There are tings in the intro that are relevant, but not everything. Likewise not everything about the relationship between jews and muslims is relevant. Relevance is determined by whether a scholar specificly makes the connection, something Polakov doesn't do.Yahel Guhan 07:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Poliakov book? Unless you read it, you can't claim "something Polakov doesn't do". Secondly, most (if not the entire) of the book is about history of antisemitism.Bless sins 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Yahel Guhan please top reverting longstanding edits. If you do wish to add content that is welcome. But don't revert edits that are longstanding. Not without consensus. If you want you can set up an RFC or something. It is also noteworthy that you haven't responded on the mediation talk page. That's where we are supposed to resolve our disputes.Bless sins 14:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah follow your own advice. I'm a bit tired of discussions which appear to be going nowhere, and until you are able to provide the quotes for the disputed sections, that is exactly what is going on. Yahel Guhan 21:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, who started this edit warring? Who reverted longstanding edits? And which sections do you think I have misrepresented and you want quotes?Bless sins 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, they weren't "longstanding." As for the second, I am refering to Polativ's quote, Stillman's and Polativ's in the muslim theology section, and all of the quotes in the so-called "trends" section. Yahel Guhan 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They were longstanding. These edits were last made on 1st September, and stayed that way until you reverted them yesterday. . One of them was put on one of the talk pages, and it was decided that this quote didn't violate policy.Bless sins 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes in the trend section were discussed before and there was no serious objections yes there were. See #Trends section. It is just repeatition of certian POV's. One of them was put on one of the talk pages, and it was decided that this quote didn't violate policy It was commented on by one person (count it- one). That is not a consensus. Yahel Guhan 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One outside, neutral, has nothing to do with this conflict supported it. Zero (count it - zero) users oppose it. BTW, I'm not interested in this discussion, unless and until to state clearly and cite the policies the content violates.Bless sins 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. There is nothing of any value added by repeating selective views already presented in the article, except added POV. It is nothing but repeatition of selective POV's, something you have filled this article with, yet attempted to disguise it as scholarship. Yahel Guhan 01:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct that wikipedia is not a vote. Thus, whether 5 people agree on something, or 500 people agree, a consensus is a consensus. "Disguise it as scholarship"? Are you saying that Norman Stillman and Bernard Lewis are not scholars?Bless sins 03:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am saying their inclusion is repeatition in a POV fashion, which doesn't merit inclusion for a second time. Yahel Guhan 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is repeated in other parts of the article, then delete it. This content is about trends and it should stay in a section about trends.Bless sins 00:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not about trends; it is about views on when muslim antisemitism occured, and guesses as to when it will occure in the future.Yahel Guhan 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's called "trends". A trend is a general direction in which something tends to move. And that is what the content is describing (i.e Muslim antisemitism went up from A-B, and is expected to go down from C-D). Projections are made all the time. Please state clearly which policy this violates (and quote the policy as well).Bless sins 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

the first view is already expressed in the section: "Modern Muslim antisemitism," where it is presented in a neutral manner. The second view is jsut a guess, and violates the policy, and is anything but neutral. We do not need a trends section in this article. Yahel Guhan 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then you can remove it from there, because it is clearly a "trend". The second view is a scholarly prediction. Such predicitons are made on wikipedia all the time. For example consider thoes made by UN Overpopulation#Population_projections_from_the_1900.27s_to_2050. And what policy does it violate? Obviously not WP:NOT#CBALL, because I put it to the policy page there and the comment received said that it was not a violation. Ofcourse we should have a trends section! Perhaps we don't need a statistics section?Bless sins 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is better where it is. It makes no sense to remove it from there and stuff it in a trends section which does nothing but add POV. The trends section is randomly selected POV quotes to attempt to give the article a certian POV point, which I don't think is necessary to mention. Statistics are relevant to the time, and should be included. There is nothing wrong with including statistics, especially considering how mush "there is no antisemitism" garbage you filled this page with. If anything, it balances that out a little. Yahel Guhan 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... its a "trend" so it belongs in a "Trends" section. What part of that do you have an objection regarding? "...garbage..." Mind WP:CIVIL, ok?Bless sins 03:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, "The trends section is randomly selected POV quotes to attempt to give the article a certian POV point" is incorrect for the following reason:

The Yahud article from Encyclopedia of Islam says the following (and only the following) on anti-semitism:

Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books (Stillman, New attitudes toward the Jew in the Arab world, in Jewish Social Studies, xxxvii [1975], 197-204; idem, Antisemitism in the contemporary Arab world, in Antisemitism in the contemporary world, ed. M. Curtis, Boulder and London 1986, 70-85). For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly, but peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s; it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend.

As you can see it is using the definition of antisemitism according to which "anti-Semitic ideas and literature" were "introduced" into the region during during the 19th and 20th centuries. As you can see its main message is how it entered and how its trend was: "At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian ... However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine ... For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly... it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend". The trend analysis is not a cherry-picked part of the quote.

But maybe saying that this is the trend "as percieved by Norman Stillman" and "according to his definition of anti-semitism" would help. --Aminz 03:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And how conveinent. Bless sins conveinently left out the "tensions arising in 2000" and how it isn't clear how it will effect the trend. Exactly my point; it is cherry picking to try to push a certian POV. Still, that doesn't prove the Jansen quote, nor does it explain why we should even include a "trends" section. Yahel Guhan 01:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are tensions arising in 2000, when did I say antisemitism has disappeared? So if something isn't clear, we don't include it, but if it is clear we do include it. Jansen's quote is not from this source. It goes in the "trends" section because it is discussing "trends".Bless sins 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jansen is not notable by wikipedia standards, and he also is not verifiable as a scholar. Can you provide some proof of his scholarship? Yahel Guhan 06:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Johannes J.G. Jansen used to be the Director of the Dutch Institute in Cairo. Since 1983, he has been an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University. His review was in the Jewish Quarterly Review an academic journal. The journal itself was published by University of Pennsylvania Press. From where I stand, I see reliability written all over this publication.Bless sins 07:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'm supposed to just take your word for it? Here is the real concern. How is he a reliable source to predict the future, as is required by his statement about trends? Does he have a degree or some scholarship in practive of fortune telling? Otherwise, his prothecy is not reliable.Yahel Guhan 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

An academic writing in an academic journal may give a professional opinion on likely future developments. This is considered a reliable source and if it is relevant may be added as a useful part of an encyclopedic article. The correct form is something like "X, of University Y, stated that....". If other scholars have contrasting views then they should also be added. Itsmejudith 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No you are not supposed to take my word for it. I found this here. But that is not why I originally thought this is reliable. I thought (and still think) this is reliable because I found his work published in the Jewish Quarterly Review an academic journal. The journal itself was published by University of Pennsylvania Press. This is why I think his work is scholarly.Bless sins 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do have any response?Bless sins 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, maybe he is a scholar, but what gives him the authority to predict the future? Yahel Guhan 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"Maybe" No he is definetly a scholar. And it his scholarly research that makes him fit to forecast the future. Such forecasts are made by academics and scientists. Please consider Overpopulation#Population_projections_from_the_1900.27s_to_2050.Bless sins 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. That alone does not make him an authority to predict the future (nor does it justify an inclusion of a "trends" section). Guesses are occausionally made by scholars, but that doesn't make them encyclopediac. You are not comparing apples to apples. Overpopulation is a future concept. Islam and antisemitism is a comparitive study about a connection. Yahel Guhan 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also said it wasn't phraised properly, and never said it should be included as it is. Yahel Guhan 02:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Thus is something is published by a reliable source it meets the criteria for inclusion. "Overpopulation is a future concept." No, many areas of the world are already overpopulated, and scholars beleive that earth may already (to a small degree) be overpopulated.Bless sins 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And it cannot be verified that in the future muslim antisemitism will go down; the reason is nobody really is a reliable source to assert that position. I do not wish to get into a debate over overpopulation; the point is it is not comparing apples to apples. Yahel Guhan 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"And it cannot be verified that in the future muslim antisemitism will go down" Yes it can. If you access to Jansen's article, you can verify it for yourself. Remember verification means "has already been published by a reliable source" per WP:V.Bless sins (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Yahel Guhan has no more objections.Bless sins (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I go on vacation, and I guess that means I have "no more objections." How ironic. I made it perfectly clear that I do have objections. Yahel Guhan 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have not made any responses to attempts of explanations. The consensus infact seems to be leaning towards the fact that professor Jansen and the Jewish Quarterly Review are reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded fairly. It is pure selective POV, probably taken out of context, and the quotes are unable to be provided. And the "consensus" doesn't exist, as you alone do not determine consensus. Yahel Guhan 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not selective POV. feel free to quote anything else useful out of the article. "probably taken out of context" It is clear you haven't read the article. If you haven't read something, how can you judge it? Go read it first, then make comment. And, btw, Aminz, Itsmejudith and I all support it.Bless sins (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article fails to mention that the Banu Qurayza were not just killed unfortunately by accident, as it is made to seem. After the Jewish Banu Qurayza surrendered, Muhammed beheaded all the men who did not convert to Islam and took the women and children as slaves. There are many anti-semitic statements in the Koran aimed at Jews, I think that this article by being politically correct is neglecting truth.

Rewrite of the Muslim theology section

The original version reads:

Judaism in Muslim theology

The part that is italicized was agreed upon in the mediation, while the rest is still disputed.

Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.

Scholars on Islam (Lewis and Jerome Chanes) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God. They argue that the Qur'an:

1. orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism, as does Judaism;
2. views the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society;
3. did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original messages that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise, and,
4. views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews.

In addition Lewis argues that the Quran lacks popular western traditions of "guilt and betrayal".

Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Quran teaches the toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith. Schwietzer and Perry argue that the Quran (^{[Quran 4:157]}) clears Jews from the accusation deicide, and states "they [Jews] killed him [Jesus] not". They also argue that the Jewish Bible has not been incorporated in the Islamic text, and "virtuous Muslims" are not contrasted with "stiff-necked, criminal Jews".

According to Stillman, the Quran praises Moses, and depicts the Israelites as the recipients of divine favour. The Quran dedicates many verses to the glorification of Hebrew prophets, says Leon Poliakov. He quotes verse ^{[Quran 6:85]} as an example,

We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations.

I think we've stated our opinions on this enough, and it is going nowhere, so I suggest working on a rewrite of this section instead that encompasses all of our concerns. Yahel Guhan 00:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem, with the non-italicized part?Bless sins 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems:

1. Rosemblatt's opinion states the same thing as Lewis' opinion- about decide.
2. Muhammad's quote is in the tolerence section, where it is most relevant. Including it here is just POV and repetation
3. Stillman's quote does not establish relevance or explain how it even relates to antisemitism. Not to mention it is very selective.

Yahel Guhan 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Rosenblatt is talking about monothiesm. In anycase his opinion is in the italic part, the part you agreed was relevant.

2. But he is not talking about tolerance. He is talking about theology. However, Mohammed may be removed since he is being quoted by FrontPageMag, an unreliable source.

3. Whether Stillman's quote is "selective", I don't care, as long as it doesn't violate nay policy.Bless sins 03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

1.How is what he is saying any different from what Lewis is saying? He is refering to decide, not monotheism. 3.Respind to the first part of my comment (i.e how he explains relevance to antisemitism) Yahel Guhan 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you quote the part about Rosenblatt. I don't think I understand your argument.

3. Stillman says its relevant to antisemitism. And its relevant to antisemitism, because it shows that teaching hatred for Judaism would be contrary to Quranic teachings.Bless sins 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. you are the one who added it, so you should provide the quote. "they [Jews] killed him [Jesus] not" means they didn't commit decide, which is exactly the same point as Lewis' above.

3.What is his quote? Does he specificly say it is contrary to islam, or rather that the statements in the quran are contrary? I'm going to remove Muhammad from the proposal, as FPM is apparently not reliable. Yahel Guhan 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. That's what I'm asking. What did I add? This is what I added about Rosenblatt: "Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Quran teaches the toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith". No mention of deicide, only monotheism.Bless sins 04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Please see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Providing_quotations for why asking me for quotes doesn't make sense.Bless sins 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I provided the exact quote as to what you wrote, which is direct relation to monotheism. 3. I remember seeing the book once, and what I said above is what his context was. It's been a while since I saw the book, nor do I remember where I saw it, but what he said was more along the lines of the statements in the qur'an are contrary. Yahel Guhan 18:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Where do I quote Rosenblatt as having said "they [Jews] killed him [Jesus] not"??

3. If you don't remember what you saw, then you don't remember what you saw. What you have to realize, is that even if I do provide quote you still have to trust my word for it. Thus, I'm not going to trouble myself for something that is not going to help the discussion in anyway.Bless sins 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Quran teaches the toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith.[12] Schwietzer and Perry argue that the Quran ([Qur'an 4:157]) clears Jews from the accusation deicide, and states "they [Jews] killed him [Jesus] not". They also argue that the Jewish Bible has not been incorporated in the Islamic text, and "virtuous Muslims" are not contrasted with "stiff-necked, criminal Jews".[13]

3.now I see why this discussion is going nowhere. Yahel Guhan 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. You realize that Schweitzer and Perry make that claim, not Rosenblatt (unless by "Rosemblatt" you meant Schweitzer and Perry"). This could be much easier if you can get the person right. In anycase I have transfered that to the "remarks" section.

3. Guess you'll just have to get the book yourself.Bless sins 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacks vs. criticisms

Yahel, the major part of your revert [1], is the section "Judaism in Muslim theology" and usage of terms like "attack" vs "criticism" etc etc.

The usage of the term attack is in fact a metaphor; it doesn't otherwise make any sense for a text to attack something. As far as I know this metaphor is used to refer to strong and hostile form of criticism. But are such evaluations personal or everybody agrees with them? This, to me, seems to be a matter of opinion. If one think the criticisms are so and so, it is better to show it and not say it. If the content of those criticisms are mentioned there, then the reader will not need our help in specifying whether they are strong and hostile.

Regarding the theology section: let me be frank: This page [2] is completely relevant to this article. However you view it, the usage of the term antisemitism as used in west is within the framework of this article. After all, most scholarly works are written in west. But aside from terms, Lewis's position is completely clear: “Another European contribution to this debate is anti-Semitism, and blaming ‘the Jews’ for all that goes wrong. Jews in traditional Islamic societies experienced the normal constraints and occasional hazards of minority status. In most significant respects, they were better off under Muslim than under Christian rule, until the rise and spread of Western tolerance in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries” (Lewis 2002: 171). Lewis also makes it clear that in general, the Muslim attitude toward dhimmis (applied equally to Jews, Christians and all other minorities) was one of contempt instead of hate, fear, or envy, and was rarely expressed in ethnic or racial terms (Lewis 1984: 32–33)

These are all relevant descriptive information for this article even if your definition of antisemitism differs from others. This article, if it is supposed to be fair and informative, should let the readers know all the facts and let them conclude on their own whether the evidences add up as "antisemitism" or not. I don't like an authority-type approach in which we first decide which facts to mention so that through this filtering of facts, the readers comes up with our desired conclusion. This is the common practice in apologetic/polemical text. I view it as an intellectual crime. --Aminz 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is not a proper header. The verses are not criticizing jews; criticism is judgement based on merit. The verses are attacking jews through name calling and baseless accusations. The verses make no judgement based on the merit of jews/judaism; they only accuse them of crimes and call them names, as the quran is not a refutation of judaism. Yahel Guhan 03:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The verses are criticizing the Jews, namely for not accepting Islam. Note we are not proposing the verses are a "refutation" of Judaism. Also, note the verses don't call for any "attack"s or "assault"s to be launched against Jews. They make verbal criticism only. "Attacks" has a violent dimension to it that is absent in the verses in that section.Bless sins 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Personal attacks are still technically attacks, which is what the verses are. Personal attacks include name calling (i.e. apes and pigs), baseless accusations (i.e. corrupting the scriptures), and there are callings for assults against jews in the quran. See the attacks section. Yahel Guhan 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, we need to precise in this issue. Strictly speaking none of us were present when those ancient Jews broke to Sabbath. And there is nothing in the text that show it is also talking about present Jew (whether he has broken Sabbath or not). But there is another dimension to the matter. One may say that in the cultural background of the time, the whole tribe was viewed as a coherent unit. In fact in many Near Eastern cultures, including Israel’s and ancient Arabs, an entire family was held guilty for the crime of the father because the family was considered an indissoluble unit (e.g. 2 Samuel 21) or that among the pre-Islamic Arabs one could avenge a member of the tribe for the sins of others. I think this argument is not accurate simply because Islam rejected that conception (Bloom and Blair 2002: 46). No guilt is passed down. But there is also a psychological argument: one can argue that when there are several negative references to incidents involving Jews, a positive impression would not be left on the readers about the Jews. Well, I think even though there are some positive descriptions too, a negative impression occurs for many readers but it is far from becoming what we know as an anti-semitic type of behavior; and this can be witnessed by the history and the traditional Dhimmi regulations.

All in all, Yahel, the article already mentions the underlying facts: i.e that the Qur'an calls those Jews by those names. The reader can herself make up her mind if such comments are baseless and offensive. It is certainly your point of view that they are. But we should keep it neutral here. The Qur'anic POV is that it is telling the truth and the story is meant to show how God takes his covenant and our sins seriously. Classifying them as simply attacks on Jews, even if true, is limiting the purpose story. We should simply relate the facts and let them speak out for themselves.

Lastly, regarding the accusation of corrupting the scriptures: There are two opinions on this: 1. There is the minority view that the Qur'an simply does not explicitly say that. 2. Taking the view of the majority, of course it has a good basis for Muslims who believe in the divine origin of the Qur'an, so it is a matter of POV. And again, there is no reason to conjecture why the Qur'an is saying that. It might very well be giving an advice for the future Muslims as to how study the Bible. Further the modern Muslims can defend this position of the Qur'an. --Aminz 06:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire section about how the qur'an attacks jews. I'm not going to debate you over your interpretation of the verses, though I disagree with yor opinion there. I think what is important here is not whether the attack verses apply to modern jews or past jews; some jews (either past or present) are subject to name calling. That is not criticism; it is a verbal attack against jews. Rather what is important is how the verses are interpreted by those saying they are attacks. Some scholars specifically state that they are attacks, while only some refer to them as "criticisms." It is these verses, in my opinion, interpreted as attacks by many, which have caused the majority of scholars to admit there is an antisemitic context in islam. I think lately this article has been heavily whitewashed by Bless sins, and has become an attempt to prove that nothing in Islam can be interpreted as antisemitism, a statement I disagree with. The problem with calling the verses "criticism" is, criticism is POV; it is saying the specified verses are legitimate examples of how jews or judaism are wrong in their actions/beliefs, and thus is pushing Tahir Abbas' view (the only one in mentioned in the article holding this view) above those of many of the other scholars who have a different opinion. It seems from what is written in the article, a common interpretation is the verses are attacks, but only addressed at a certain group of jews, but they are attacks nonetheless. A third opinion appears to be that the verses are just attacks. Overall, it seems the majority opinion of the verses is that they are attacks, disputes over whether they refer to all jews, or just a certain group that allegedly were bad. Yahel Guhan 07:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, to say that those Jews were transformed into apes is simply relating God's punishment on them. Where is the explicit attack or criticism? The Qur'an says that some Jews, thousands of years ago Jews broke the Sabbath and God punished them in that way. 4:153- 4:162 appears more to be a criticism. But doesn't this history look similar to Nehemiah 9:16-18, 26, 28? Can you please summarize the Biblical story of the Jewish people without making such references. --Aminz 07:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to debate religion. I have found through experience that it is pointless. But it sounds like an attack more to me, saying Jews break the sabbath, if you believe different, you're entitled to that opinion. But for this article, like I just said, I think we should use the term used by most of the scholars; that way we aren't giving undue weight to any one view. Yahel Guhan 07:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you are honest in saying that among the source you've seen most of them use "attack" but I don't think anybody can find an scholarly source saying "most scholar use the term "attack"". How about using the term "remark" (i.e. the Qur'an remarks that those Jews were transfered into apes for breaking the Sabbath) or "comment" or "relate" or "say". My position is that we mention any kind of criticism/attack/whatever the Qur'an has made but we let the reader come up with his conclusion. How does that look? --Aminz 08:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. remarks will work... but I will have to merge the tolerence section into there, because otherwise it is POV to have a positive and neutral section. There is also one problem. The first sentence would then read: The Qur'an contains remarkks on Jews[16][17][18] for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God. That doesn't make sense. I'm thinking that sentence will have to be left alone. Yahel Guhan 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think after some thought someone may come up with a version agreed upon by all parties.

I have not closely followed the discussions here. All I know that there is still discussion about the theology section here. I certainly don't want to revert the new additions of yours that I have not evaluated but it really reasonable to me that we should include those statements by Lewis. The approach I think is the best is to take the Lewis's book and summarize the whole chapter in the following way: Take every two or three pages, find the main themes and summarize them. Whenever there is a dispute regarding the wording, we can quote the source directly. We can do similar thing for others. If Norman Stillman talks about the trend of antisemitism in recent times, we can include it under his name rather than under a new section. --Aminz 09:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but we can say, "The Qur'an criticizes the Jews[16][17][18] for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God." Criticism is perfectly acceptable. Unless, you want to move name-calling as documented on Criticism of Muhammad to Attacks on Muhammad, you should also want to keep this as "criticism" and not "attacks". Remember attacks are physical and violent, while the Qur'an only makes verbal criticisms.Bless sins 16:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is unacceptable for the wording of the first sentence. Criticism is POV in this case; using criticism is saying that because of these remarks jews and judaism is wrong. In reality, they are attacks, as that is what the scholars say they are. Attacks are saying these verses state why Islam is antisemitic. And attacks are not always phyiscal and violent; they can also be physichological. Yahel Guhan 00:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism doesn't imply truth. It simply implies disagreement and the perception of fault. In anycase, would you be in favor of renaming "Criticism of Muhammad" to "Attack on Muhammad"? This is a simple analogy I'm giving to show you how "criticism" is better.Bless sins 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering are you guys sure these are either criticisms or attacks? It strikes me that they are warnings: Watch out! Those people sinned and God punished them in that way. These would then be examples of a more general theme of the Quran.

So, we can write: The Qur'an warns those Jews who did not believe in Muhammad by citing the stories of God's past punishment on them for their sins.

Here is the Quranic verse 2:65-66

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected. So We made them an example to those who witnessed it and those who came after it, and an admonition to those who guard (against evil).

The next verse explains the aim of the story. It is a warning and an admonition.

--Aminz 01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To Bless sins: I would oppose the renaming, because the topic of that article is not insults thrown at Muhammad; it is a list of charges against Muhammad based on his actions and the words of his followers. The verses mentioned are rather name calling and baseless accusations, and labeling of all jews with certian characteristics mentioned in the article.

To Aminz: Is that what the scholars say? No. I don't see how stating jews are cowards, greedy, or accusations of altering the scripture could constitute "warnings". Rather they are insults directed at all jews (either all or at the time). Nor am I aware of which source you gave for the interpritation of the verse. Yahel Guhan 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So the charges that Muhammad is the devil, was inspired by Satan based on his actions? Do you seriously expect me to beleive that there are devils running around in the world? Certainly some charges are based on his actions.

But many charges against Jews (maybe not all) are based on their actions as well. Their refusal to accept Muhammad is well documented. Do you dispute that? Bless sins 02:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to add my thoughts about this section. (1) I think the choice of terminology should be guided more by good neutral sources than our own opinions. If "attack" is used more than "criticism" (I don't know), then it is a plausible term, and vice versa. (2) That said, I think the section is strongest when it interprets the Quran through the eyes of scholars (e.g., Perry vs Abbas, Lewis, etc). It might be better to present the verses only as contextualized by the (scholarly) interpretations. If there is a section, as now, before "Interpretations", then we need to be astute about how to characterize the raw text. Better to be a bit understated, e.g. "The Quran contains controversial texts/verses about Jews. Among those verses understood as attacks or criticisms, the Quran addresses Jews for their refusal...." We shouldn't over-interpret for our readers, either let the scholars/secondary sources do it or be more restrained. (3) Why is the "apes and pigs" primary text section placed after Interpretations? Shouldn't this be integrated into the Remarks/ Attacks/ Criticisms section? (4) Assuming that most readers don't know much if anything about the Quran, it would help to introduce the section by explaining that the Quran is scripture, its relation to Muhammad and Islam. Indeed, in the 1st para on hadith, I see the kind of basic background (but not precise text) that might go before launching into Quranic verses. In sum, since you are disagreeing over how to characterize the primary sources (e.g., Quran), instead of arguing about your own analysis, wouldn't it be best to focus on describing/editing the views of various scholars? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(1). In the area of religion, the word criticism is used more often. Consider: Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of the Bible etc. I leave it to Yahel Guhan to find examples of "Attacks on A" as opposed to "Criticism of A".

(2) Certainly, I agree.

(3) The apes and pigs section shouldn't exist. The only source claiming antisemitism failed RS. The current doesn't seem to be about antisemitism. Infact the source says, just before mentioning the apes and pigs: "There is little sign of any deep-rooted emotional hostility directed against Jews—or for that matter any other group—such as the anti-Semitism of the Christian world."

(4) Well we do discuss the position of Jews in the Quran at the beginning of the section. I guess you want some "background" information included. I certainly agree, but Yahel Guhan tends to think that "background" information is irrelevant.Bless sins 05:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bless sins. On #1, I means the use of "criticism" by scholars writing about the Quran and anti-Semitism. On #3, if you both agree a secondary source isn't available, I'd suggest that you both agree to delete the item until its referenced. On #4, for Wikipedia style purposes, I'd say rather than "background" let's call it "context." Anyway, thanks and I look forward to Yahel's input, too. HG | Talk 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I think you will find use of both "attacks" and "criticism" to describe the verses. Eventually we have to decide which is more accurate and neutral.Bless sins 07:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

On (1), ideally, is it possible to see which term appears most in the best sources? Or, what if both terms appear in the heading? Thusly: "Criticisms and attacks" Or, what if there's a third term that covers both? ("Denunciations" "Condemning the Jews" "Disparaging remarks" -samples) Finally, why not just call the section "The Quran and anti-Semitism"? As a matter of style, you don't really need lower subheadings with the amount of content under Quran. (And related: the "Muslim theology" section doesn't belong under Quran, probably should come beforehand?) Thanks. HG | Talk 13:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "Jews"? That's it. Because it is in the section "Qur'an", it means it must have something to do with the Qur'an, and because it is in the article "Islam and antisemitism", it means the section is relevant to antisemitism. Secondly, the "Muslim theology" is perhaps a bit misleading. The section actually discusses theology as discussed in the Quran. All the statements in that section are about the Qur'an. Maybe I should change that to simply Judaism.Bless sins 17:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't really discuss "theology" at all (except for the quote you made up) My opinion remains the same, it should all be merged together. Yahel Guhan 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It does discuss theology. Many of the statements make a direct reference to "theology". I.e they explicitly use the word "theology". Others talk about the systematic study of the Qur'anic truths (as perceived by Muslims). This includes the assertion that Jesus didn't die, then how is it possible for the Jews to have killed him?Bless sins 04:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't discuss theology, nor does it explicitly use the word. Only one sentence uses the word "theology" and that sentence isn't relevant to the sentences that follow (as it is sourced to a page 7 pages later than the sentence following. Yahel Guhan 05:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, atleast part of the content uses the word "theology". The two sections are distinct for two reasons: one is that one section discusses Judaism, while the other discusses Jews. The second reason is theology. Theology simply means a study of religious truths. And the first section does discuss that. I've already given the example of prophet Jesus. It also discusses monotheism, the concept of Messiah and its relation to prophet Muhammad's prophethood, the place of Hebrew scriptures and it relation with Qur'an etc.Bless sins 06:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not distinct in that one discussed Judaism; the section isn't even relevant to the qur'an, nad doesn't belong there. They both discuss the same thing; jews. The section does not discuss the "study of religous truths;" (except the one sentence which cannot be verified) it discusses decide. It does Hebrew scriptures, and its relation to islam, but not the qur'an. Finally, Lewis does not say "Qur'an doesn't offend Jews by declaring Muhammad a Son of God or Messiah" Yahel Guhan 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the content discusses Judaism. The Hebrew scriptures are Judaism, toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith is Judaism, discussing Hebrew prophets (like Moses) and the stories of the Israelites (similar to those told in the Bible) is also Judaism. While the part on "Jews" is about Jews, their characteristics, their history, their interactions with prophet Muhammad etc.Bless sins 11:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't really answer what I wrote, so I will make it clearer. One, how is the section related to the Qur'an? Two, Where does Lewis say "Qur'an doesn't offend Jews by declaring Muhammad a Son of God or Messiah"? Three, why is this a big enouth difference to warrent seperation? Yahel Guhan 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Incase, you're wondering, Son of God thing has been moved to the section on the prophet Muhammad.Bless sins 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about answering the questions now. Yahel Guhan 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Providing quotations

Yahel Guhan, I can't provide quotations whenever you what them for many reasons.

If you want a source to be verified you have 3 choices:

1. Get the book/buy it, and read it for yourself.

2. Trust me in that what I have said about the book is true.

3. Ask me for a quotation. And then trust me in that the quotation I have provided is true.

Thus, either you read the book yourself, or you have to trust me. From your perspective you are forced to trust me if you can't find the book. Thus whether I provide the quote or not you are forced to trust me. From my perspective its one less trip to the library. Thus, option 2 is better for both of us, (of course option 1 is the best).

But there are legitimate instance of asking for the quote. one such would be when you read the book and find that no evidence of Islam and/or antisemitism. In that case I'd be obliged to provide a verification.Bless sins 03:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to be considered is where is the limit for this? If you believe that I must provide quotes whenever you ask me, that will create huge problems. One could ask another to provide quotes for the entire article, easily killing 5-6 hours of one's time. Every request for quotation must be backed by some very good reason.Bless sins 04:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there is one more option. You could scan the page into the computer and email it to me. Yahel Guhan 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This option will remain closed until I get a scanner. (Scanners aren't that cheap).Bless sins (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

apes and pigs section

Bless sins, I found a new source for the apes and pigs section, and again, you completely removed it without providing any justification. Yahel Guhan 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HG and I have been discussing this already at "Attacks vs. criticisms" section. The source you found says nothing about antisemitism. Actually, it does say something about antisemitism, that it was not present in Islam.Bless sins 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

the quotes of the modern islamists prove relevance to antisemitism, and the source does prove relevance, as it addresses both Islam and jews. If I recall correctly, HG's point is that the section should go before the interpritations. Yahel Guhan 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you both are discussing such items. (Hopefully, you're not edit warring at the same time, right? Pls try to resolve here rather than thru edits.) Yahel is right that my point was to move the subsection upwards. Still, I agree w/BlessSins that the linkage (aka interpretation) to anti-Semitism needs to be demonstrable/verifiable from a secondary source. Yahel, maybe you'd like some time to find a secondary source? Meanwhile, the relevant text could be tagged as unreferenced, ok? HG | Talk 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The source I provided [3] can be verified on p. 198, where Lewis states the interpritation is that jews are apes and pigs. For the interpritation, see p. 33. Yahel Guhan 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Lewis is only talking about Christian antisemitism, but this aritcle is about Muslim antisemitism. He is not talking about Muslim antisemitism. Infact, on page 32, which is before page 33, he says "There is little sign of any deep-rooted emotional hostility directed against Jews—or for that matter any other group—such as the anti-Semitism of the Christian world." It would be contradictory of him to accuse Muslims of antisemitism right after clearing them of the charge.Bless sins 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read it. Lewis calls it an attitude of "contempt" and "the language of abuse." He does differentiate Christian anti-Semitism with Arab attitudes, which apparently Lewis doesn't label as anti-Semitism until a more recent period (p.189-9). (BTW Is Lewis similar to Kramer in this regard?) Anyway, since this Quranic language of abuse/contempt gets incorporated into later anti-Semitism, I suppose it needs to be mentioned in the Quranic section. Is there a way to group the acdemic treatment of Islamic anti-Semitism into "scholarly approaches" so that the article doesn't have to disaggregate each individual scholar? HG | Talk 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your above argument suggests it may be included in the part about distortion or something... But where again does Lewis say that the Qur'anic verses are antisemitic? He says that Muslim Language of abuse is not antisemitism. Where does he say that it is antisemitism?Bless sins 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The language is abusive, as he says, and abusive language is antisemitic in this case, unless he says otherwise. But Lewis never says the abusive language is not antisemitic. Yahel Guhan 01:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does Lewis say abusive language inspired by Qur'an (X:Y) is antisemitic? Infact, he says that Muslim literature was not antisemitic just before he describes this "abusive language".Bless sins 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

On p. 33. As for your second point, no he doesn't. Unless you wish to provide some evidence to the contrary... Yahel Guhan 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Please provide the quote where Lewis says that Qur'an (X;Y)'s abusive language is antisemitic. This is what Lewis says: "One important point should be made right away. There is little sign of any deep rooted emotional hostility against Jews such as the antisemitism of the Christian world. There are, however, negative attitudes..."p. 32. "On the whole, in contrast to Christian antisemitism, the Muslim attitude is not one of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt."p. 33 (emphasis added)

Thus in both the quotes above Lewis is saying that Muslim attitude was not antisemitic. Please note that "contrast" means to compare in order to show unlikeness, thus Lewis is trying to show how Muslim attitude was unlike antisemitism. This is supported by his argument when he says that Muslims did not hate, fear or envy Jews.Bless sins 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim attitudes of "contempt" does not mean that Muslim literature was "not antisemitic." Reguardless of whether Lewis specificly calls the verses "antisemitic," they have been interprited that way by others, and that makes it relevant. Yahel Guhan 07:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reguardless of whether Lewis specificly calls the verses "antisemitic," they have been interprited that way by others," Who interprets it as antisemitism? Obviously not Muslims. It would be very ridiculous for for a Muslim to say "I'm antisemitic". The allegation of antisemitism is a non-Muslim allegation against Islam. Secondly, if the verses have been interpreted in an antisemitic manner by modern scholars, then it belongs in the "Modern ----" section.Bless sins 10:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you recall correctly, it was sourced to: Johannes J. G. Jansen, The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism, p. 179" who said it was applied to Jews in the 20th century. It is ridiculous to expect most antisemites (Muslim or non-Muslim) to specifically say "I'm antisemitic" unless their antisemitism was something of pride for them. And there are Muslims who are openly antisemitic; I highly doubt no Muslim has ever specifically said those words, considering the high percentages of antisemitic Muslims in the world. Instead, Muslims interpret the qur'an as saying Jews are evil, Jews are apes and pigs, Jews are the devil, Hitler was right, etc. Muslims pretend to only be anti-Zionists, they deny the holocaust, and they call for violence and the extermination of Jews, all at the same time denying their own obvious antisemitism. Muslims still are antisemitic; it is obvious by their speeches and actions, even scholars say so. Did Hitler specifically say "I'm antisemitic?" No. He made antisemitic speeches, killed and tortured millions of Jews, but the word "antisemitism" was never spoken by him in reference to himself. It is no non-Muslim allegation against Islam; it is a highly disputed concept within the academia as to the extent for which antisemitism is islamic. Anyway, we are getting into the realm of WP:NOT#FORUM here with this, as hardly any of this (or your last comment) relates to the content of this section. The apes and pigs section doesn't belong in the modern section, as the verses have been in the Qur’an since the book was first written. We are referring to the interpretations of the qur'an. (Specifically modern interpretations) By your logic, all interpretations go in the "modern" section then, because they are all modern interpretations. That is just ridiculous. The apes and pigs stuff is just as relevant and modern as anything else in that section. There is no need to separate it; it just doesn't make sense. Yahel Guhan 05:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You correctly noted that you were "getting into the realm of WP:NOT#FORUM". If a scholar has said the Qur'an's verses are antisemitic, then we note it in the Qur'an sections. If a scholar has said that modern Muslims are being antisemitic then we note it in the modern section. The source you have provided above says neither, but only says that there is "little sign" of antisemitism in the Muslim world. He also contrasts (meaning unlike) Muslim attitudes towards Jews with antisemitism.Bless sins 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. If a scholar interprits a part of the quran as being a cause of antisemitism, even if they do not themeslves say the verse is antisemitic, it is relevant to the qur'an section. And you are right about the second part. If a scholar says modern muslims are antisemitic, it belongs in the modern section. And the source I provided does say the verses were interprited as being a cause of antisemitism; whether or not they actually are is not relevant to whether or not they should be included. Yahel Guhan 04:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, let's keep it simple: if a scholar says the Qur'an is antisemitic, then we put it in the Qur'an section. If a scholar says a modern cleric is antisemitic, then we put it in the modern section.Bless sins 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

except the scholars are saying modern clerics are antisemitic because of the quran. Thus the interpritations of the verses causing the antisemitism belong in the quran section, while the actual sermons belong in the modern section. Yahel Guhan 02:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, here is another source for the apes and pigs interpritations. Yahel Guhan 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First note that Lewis ( in the book and page number provided by you) in no way says that verses of the Qur'an are a cause of antisemitism. In fact he says the opposite: he says there is "little sign" of antisemitism and Muslim attitudes were not like antisemitism.

"because of the quran" Well everything happens because of the Qur'an (or the traditions), because Islam itself is based on those two sources. Does this mean the entire article should be put in the Qur'an section?

BTW, your source: what credentials does the author have in Islam and antisemitism? And does the author even make the allegation of antisemitism?Bless sins 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lewis says the following:

"On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or envy but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways. There is no lack of polemic literature attacking Christians and occasionally also the Jews. The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions 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.[35] Different formulae of greeting are used when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims, whether in conversation or in correspondence. Christians and Jews were forbidden to give their children distinctively Muslim names and, by Ottoman times, even those names that were shared by the three religions, such as Joseph or David, were differently spelled for the three. Non-Muslims learned to live with a number of differences of this sort; like the sartorial laws, they were part of the symbolism of inferiority."

[35] Sometimes the term "pig" is applied to both. The reference to apes may derive from the Qur'an (II,61; V,65;VII,166). See Henri Peres, La Peosie analouse en arabe classique au XIe siecle (Paris, 1952), pp. 240-241; Perlmann, "Eleventh-Century Analusian Authors," pp. 287-288.

He never says "very little antisemitism." In fact he says the language of the quran is "abusive, specificly refering to the apes and pigs verses." Does this mean the entire article should be put in the Qur'an section? No. But all interpritations of the quran (ancient and modern) should be.

what credentials does the author have in Islam and antisemitism All the people being quoted within the article are reliable sources for interpritations on the topic. Which quoted person do you not deem reliable? Yahel Guhan 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"he says the language of the quran is "abusive, specificly refering to the apes and pigs verses."" This article is not Islam and abusive language. This article is Islam and antisemitism. Also he says that the reference to apes may come from the Qur'an, not the abusive language. For example, the words "bitch" and "ass" can be found in the dictionary. Now if someone uses those terms abusively, the dictionary can't be blamed.

"No. But all interpritations of the quran (ancient and modern) should be." Everything that is related to Islam is an interpretation of the Qr'an (or the Islamic tradition). Everything.

Regarding credentials: I was talking about Aluma Schulnik from here. I don't deem this person to be a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive means "using, containing, or characterized by harshly or coarsely insulting language" [4] Thus he is saying the language of the quran is harshly insulting jews. The section describes how the qur'an has been interprited reguarding jews; abusive language is definently relevant to the topic of jews.

But since you are going to play the game where the word "antisemitism" must be presented within the same paragraph in order to be relevant, lets look at some of your material; specificly the following:

"According to Stillman, the Quran praises Moses, and depicts the Israelites as the recipients of divine favour.[11] The Quran dedicates many verses to the glorification of Hebrew prophets, says Leon Poliakov.[21] He quotes verse [Qur'an 6:85] as an example,

We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations.

Do Stillman or Poliakov specificly use the word "antisemitism"? No. They don't. Also see Lewis' comment: "There is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" Refutations of Judaism and anti-jewish diatribes are not antisemitism. Or the entire tolerence section. Same thing. No mention of the word "antisemitism."

Everything that is related to Islam is an interpretation of the Qr'an. No. The history of Islam is not an interpritation of the qur'an; neither is the material which is an interpritation of Muhammad's life, or the hadith.

OK, reguarding the source. If you see WP:RS/N, as for the reliability, it has been determined that MEMRI is a reliable source for opinions, but not for facts when attributed correctly. The relevant section reads as follows:

According to Islam, the ancient Jews were turned into animals for transgressing the word of God.[11] This divine punishment is mentioned in the most important sources of Islamic religious law, in both the Koran's recounting of the divine revelation, and in the extremely reliable Hadiths (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) compiled by the leading ninth-century sages Muslim and Al-Bukhari,[12] which mention also mice, lizards, and other animals in the same context.

The divine punishment of Jews is mentioned in three Koranic verses: "... They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60); "...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65);[13] and "when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised" (7:166).[14]

Arab literature (Adab) also discussed Jews' transformation into animals. In his 9th century treatise The Book of Animals, the greatest of these authors, Al-Jahiz,[15] mentions that it is generally thought that the cheetah, eel, white ant, mouse, and lizard were originally Jews. He mentions the tradition telling how a sage saw a man eating a lizard and said to him: "Know that you have eaten one of the sheikhs of the sons of Israel." He does not mention why they were changed into animals, but does say that proof of this is that "the lizard's foot resembles the human hand."

Another relevnat part reads: "As the 14th century Koran commentator Ibn Kathir[45] says, every deed has its appropriate recompense. He goes on to explain why Jews were punished by being transformed into apes and pigs: the Jews conspired to fish on Saturday, preparing hooks, nets, and poles ahead of time. When the schools of fish appeared near the shore on Saturday, they were caught by the nets, which the Jews had cleverly devised so that they could not escape that day. In the evening, the Jews came to collect the fish; when they did, Allah turned them into apes, which most closely resemble humans but are not really human. The Jews' actions and subterfuges were outwardly like the truth, but in essence opposed to it – and their reward was thus suited to their deeds"

As you can see, it is attributed to many historic muslim scholars, including Al-Jahiz and Ibn Kathir, not just Aluma Solnick. Yahel Guhan 07:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

while MEMRI might be noteworthy for its own opinions, as you said, it is not a reliable source for relating to us others' opinions, esp. those of classical authorities.

also, with regards to 'abusive', someone needs to study Lewis' words a little more closely. Lewis is talking about Muslim polemical literature against Jews and Christians, about which he says "The language of abuse is often quite strong." - as they are referred to in standard form/convention as apes and pigs. he then mentions in a footnote, that the respective epithets used in these polemical attacks are derived from Qur'anic verses discussing how some Jews in history were transformed. nowhere does Lewis say that the "language of the Qur'an" is "abusive" - this is a total misrepresentation of Lewis' passage. please, let's refrain from misreading sources like this. ITAQALLAH 11:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about "others opinions" yet, nor did they say "own"; that is your opinion; still, bless sins opened a new thread there for more specific questions, so we'll wait for an answer there.

No, it is not a "total misrepresentation of Lewis' passage." So the verses derived form quranic verses discussing how some Jews in history were transformed. Thus it is relevant and belongs in the article; it proves the verses were interprited this way. Yahel Guhan 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please note, so far Yahel Guhan hasn't cited a single passage from lewis that accuses the Qur'an of being "antisemitic".Bless sins (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is obcious we aren't going to reach a consensus here, so I will file an RFC on this issue.

RFC

Please note that the user has provided no sources for this. The user has pointed to a book by Lewis, but the source does not say that these verses are relevant to Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes As it stands, the info under Arab sermons seems relevant and is sourced by Lewis, Pipes, the Syrian deputy minister quote is cited by the "Antisemitism Documentation Project", and the monkey and pigs comment is sourced by the Anti-Defamation League as "Classic Antisemitic Stereotypes". It seems that these comments have been contextualized as antisemitic. If my comment has not addressed the issue, would a brief recap be possible? Phyesalis (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the RfC fails to provide adequate information. I believe you (Phyesalis) are referring to this section. The dispute was regarding the Qur'an section. I myself have doubts as to what exactly the user is talking about.Bless sins (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Without additional clarification, I'm afraid I don't see what the problem is. Phyesalis (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not the quran verses which state that jews are apes and pigs should be included, based on the quotes and sources mentioned above. Bless sins is claiming that even though Lewis mentions the quran verse as an example of abusive language in the quran, since he doesn't specificly use the word "antisemitism," the verses shouldn't be mentioned at all. I disagree completely with that statement, and that is the issue. Yahel Guhan 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Yeah, it's hard to offer a comment not seeing how the info would be presented, but, given the previously mentioned sources under "Arab sermons", I'm thinking it would be reasonable and helpful to have a discussion of the verses themselves. I'm thinking that this will need some good writing and lengthy footnotes. Something along the lines of "Lewis discusses the abusive language of Verses X and Y. These verses are often cited in modern antisemitic statements (please see/link to "Arab sermons")." It isn't necessary to state that they are antisemitic if they are used as a part of antisemitic logic (as established by current citation). Was this helpful? Phyesalis (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Lewis doesn't establish any "antisemitic logic". Infact, the context in which this is mentioned, Lewis is saying that Islam/Muslims are not antisemitic. The logic needs to be established by a reliable source, not by users.Bless sins (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read Lewis' quote above? You are making up reasons not to put the verses in. Lewis clearly states that he believes the language of the verses is "abusive." He isn't saying they are "not antisemitic" as you so claim. Yahel Guhan 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The current Quran section seems balanced and appropriately cited. Generally though, we shouldn't rely on religious scriptures directly for claims, as they are filled with allegories and metaphors, and also prone to opposing interpretations. Vassyana (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current sections seems balanced. I also agree (very strongly) that we should never rely on religious scriptures, because they can be interpreted differently by different people. We should always insist on reliable academic sources.Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the issue is whether Lewis' comment that the language of the verses contain abusive language should be included. Yahel Guhan 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify, the issue is whether Lewis statement that does not deal with antisemitism but abusive language, should it be included?Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a very unique interpritation of the text. I often wonder if you make up interpritations to better support your POV pushing desires. Yahel Guhan 05:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting

Bless sins, why do you keep removing this from the article. It is clearly relevant to the topic. Yahel Guhan 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me one reliable source that considers this act antisemitism, as well as an example of Islamic teachings. Thanks.Bless sins 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An attack on jews is obviously antisemitic. It is islamic because it was done by a muslim. Are we going to start this discussion again here? Yahel Guhan 01:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me one reliable source that considers this act antisemitism, as well as an example of Islamic teachings. That's all I ask.Bless sins 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[5] This is a reliable source. Muslims being antisemitic makes it relevant to this article; this article is the history of muslim antisemitism, not just how islamic teachings relate to antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, does the article say anything about "antisemitism"? Secondly, this article is "Islam and antisemitism". While history of Muslim antisemitism is relevant, WP:UNDUE implies. A fringe person who was in no way a notable member of the faith doesn't deserve mention on this page. If anything we should be talking about Ottoman empire etc. which forma a big chunk of Muslim history.Bless sins 04:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to hold a double standards (looks familiar to your arguement about Islamophobia). Somehow it is OK to include a fringe picture there, but you can't allow a highly notable event to be included in this article. And Haq most certianly is a notable muslim (at least as far as wikipedia is concerned- wikipedia standards for notability is an article on the subject) So unless you are going to nominate Haq's article for an afd, which probably will fail, he is a notable muslim. This article isn't entitled History of the muslims or History of the Jews under Muslim rule, so not everything in muslim history belongs in this article. Yahel Guhan 05:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look at my last comment on Talk:Islamophobia#Image. I'm waiting for your response BTW. Fringe elements certainly don't belong, neither here nor on Islamophobia. Haq is notable, but he isn't notable for being a Muslim. He is notable for shooting people. Don't you think that if Haq was a Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc. his shooting would still have gotten media attention? Let me give you a simple example. You says that because Haq was notable and he was Muslim, therefore this is an example of "Islamic antisemitism". Ok, Haq was notable and he was a man. Therefore, this is an example of "Men and antisemitism"? The preceding example is just as ridiculous as the one being argued here.Bless sins 06:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Haq is notable for committing an antisemitic act (shooting jews) in the process of self identifying as a muslim. (by stating "I am a Muslim...") So he is notable for being a muslim. He acted while shouting he is a muslim. To answer your second point, you are correct. He would be an example of "Men and antisemitism," if you wish to make such a rediculous connection. He is a notable man who committed a major notable antisemitic crime. Though I doubt you could find any scholarly sources stating a connection between "men and antisemitism." It is just rediculous. Yahel Guhan 07:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is true he yelled "I am a Muslim". Yet all scholars will agree that Islam is not merely yelling "I'm a Muslim". Infact, saying that is nowhere in Islamic teachings either. "Though I doubt you could find any scholarly sources stating a connection between "men and antisemitism."" Can you find a a scholarly source that says the shooting was an example of "Islam and antisemitism"?Bless sins 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet all scholars will agree that Islam is not merely yelling "I'm a Muslim". Do you have a source for this? It is an example of Islam and antisemitism, because it is an example of muslims being antisemitic. Are you going to turn back on your word already? Yahel Guhan 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source that says this incident "is an example of Islam and antisemitism".Bless sins 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I already did. Muslim antisemitism is an example of islam and antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 04:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

<re-indent>Is there a source that says this is "Muslim antisemitism"?Bless sins (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what the source I provided said. He is a muslim preforming an antisemitic act; thus it is muslim antisemitism. Here is a source that should make it clear: [6] "While Haq's violence exploded inside a political context—the Jewish Federation, Israel's war in Lebanon—his motivations were those of a frustrated man, who, according to Renner, didn't fit in anywhere and felt persecuted and embarrassed by his parents' Pakistani background. Haq is not a jihadi, nor a radical Islamist; his anti-Semitic rhetoric seems more like a veneer of politics on a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection. Yahel Guhan 06:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you for a source that says "Muslim antisemitism". Instead you provide me with one that says "Haq is not a jihadi, nor a radical Islamist;" (emphasis added) According to the source, his antisemitic rhetoric is the result of "a veneer of politics on a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection". Infact, the source you provided, if it is reliable, can be used (by me) to show that Haq was not motivated by Islamism and not motivated by jihad. Thanks for that :-).Bless sins (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The source says he wasn't motivated by "radical islamism; that doesn't mean he isn't an islamist, not does it mean he wasn't motivated by islam. The source proves that the subject is notable for antisemitism, and is acting in the name of islam. Yahel Guhan 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Haq is notable for antisemitism. Bus is Haq's antisemitism notable as Islamic antisemitism? The source you provided seems to suggest the answer is no. Is there any source that says the answer is yes?Bless sins (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He is notable fore being a muslim who is being antisemitic. I suppose we can file an RFC on this issue, since you are obviously unwilling to compromise. Yahel Guhan 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any source that says his religion (Islam) is connected to antisemitism. All you are doing is arbitrarily picking two characteristics and synthesizing them.Bless sins (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. You are going to have to explain. Yahel Guhan 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are taking two concepts, "Muslim" and "antisemitic", and drawing a relationship between the two concepts. This relationship is not drawn by the sources, only by you. Thus, this is synthesis.Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is antisemitism in islam/by muslims, and that is made claer by the sources. It is antisemitism by a muslim. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are half correct. The topic of this article is antisemitism in Islam. Ofcourse instances of antisemitism by Muslims, that are relevant to Islam can be included. However, no reliable source has yet stated that the person was motivated by the Qur'an, hadith, jihad or another Islamic doctrine. Infact, sources say that he was not motivated by Islamic doctrines.Bless sins (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I am fully correct on this one. Muslim antisemitism is very relevant to this article, reguardless of whether it was specificly motivated by Islamic texts. second, the sources do not say he was "not motivated by islamic doctrines" as you claim. Yahel Guhan 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "Muslim" by definition pertains to Islam. The fact is: not a single source relates his religion (let alone his religion as Islam) to antisemitism. This source says "his motivations were those of a frustrated man, who, according to Renner, didn't fit in anywhere and felt persecuted and embarrassed by his parents' Pakistani background. Haq is not a jihadi, nor a radical Islamist; his anti-Semitic rhetoric seems more like a veneer of politics on a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection." Basically the source is relating antisemitism to "feelings of inadequacy and rejection", specifically ruling out jihad and radical Islam.Bless sins (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. You made the exact same arguement on Talk:Naveed Afzal Haq to attempt to say he wasn't a muslim. I'm not going to repeat it.Yahel Guhan 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kramer

My version reads:

Martin Kramer states that the argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essential 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. He states that Islamic tradition provides the sources for modern Islamic antisemitism, and that modern Islamists often point to the Qur'an, which portrays Jews in a negative way both in a "historical context and future schemes." Though this answer, he argues, "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 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."[8]

Your version reads:

Martin Kramer states that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslim antisemites. He also argues that for for Muslims to portray the Jew as the eternal Jew, "there must be more at work than Islamic tradition". The fact that many Islamic thinkers have spent time in the West has resulted in the absorption of antisemitism. Modern texts further distort the Qur'an by quoting it besides texts such as the Protocals of Zion. This use of Islamic tradition, according to Kramer, feeds antisemitism.[36]

Bless sins, your version completely removes all references to islamic tradition being a source, and enthesizes it as a "distortive use," however he doesn't make that arguement completely. He says it is a cause, but not the complete cause. Yahel Guhan 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kramer is talking about two positions in parallel:i.e. those that "locate the source of this antisemitism either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel."

He comments on both of them.

Yahel Guhan's version only talks about the first position. Bless sins's version is shorter (which is good because we don't want to give undue weight to Kramer) but it loses the organization of the main article. --Aminz 21:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, if you notice we have given scholars as little space as possible, for the sake of brevity. ventually all of the views should be merged into a single (or multiple) paragraph(s), but that is not urgent. Secondly, the stuff related to the Qur'an is discussed in the Qur'an section.Bless sins 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it seems to me you are censoring out their views which depict islam in a negative light (i.e. views stating that Islam is antisemitic or the quran is a soruce for antisemitism) Yahel Guhan 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Martin Kramer, quite wisely, never makes any direct criticism of Islam. He notes that others think that the root of Muslim antisemitism is Islam, and the he says that the view is partially correct. Thus it is not appropriate to attribute to Kramer a view that he only partially believes in.

Please quote a view of Kramer that I'm censoring.Bless sins 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed the following from what I written: that the argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essential 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. He states that Islamic tradition provides the sources for modern Islamic antisemitism, and that modern Islamists often point to the Qur'an, which portrays Jews in a negative way both in a "historical context and future schemes."

He says that in the following (paragraphs copied with important parts bolded)[7]:

• The two most common answers—which do draw straight lines—locate the source of this antisemitism either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel. Let me begin with the first: the idea that Islamic prejudice against the Jews goes back fourteen centuries, that Islamic theology is ipso facto antisemitic. At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, relates the Qur'an, some Jews engaged in treachery against him. This is recorded in the Qur'an as God's word. Speaking to Jewish audiences, I am often asked by those who have read certain passages of the Qur'an whether Jew-hatred is not endemic to Islam. Is it possible for any Muslim who goes back to these sources to read them as anything other than an indictment of Jewish treachery? There is a view that Islam in its very essence is antisemitic, and that the roots of the antisemitism we see today are authentically Islamic.

• Does that mean that today's Islamic antisemitism has no grounding of Islam? No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds. Here is the mentor of Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah, pointing to the Qur'an as just such a source: "In the vocabulary of the Qur'an," he says, "Islamists have much of what they need to awaken the consciousness of Muslims, relying on the literal text of the Qur'an, because the Qur'an speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their historical conduct and future schemes."

--Yahel Guhan 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider both passages.

• The first passage starts off with "The two most common answers locate the source of this antisemitism in the essence of Islam... Let me begin with the first:"

Thus Kramer is merely repeating an argument that is often made, but not his. He confirms this when he says that this touches some truths but misses others.

• That is a valid argument, and I've included it: "There is no doubt that such use of Islamic tradition, according to Kramer, provides the sources that feed antisemitism."

Bless sins 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he isn't repeating an arguement that is already made. Lets look at the full section, including the parts you just left out: "The two most common answers—which do draw straight lines—locate the source of this antisemitism either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel. Let me begin with the first" He may be repeating an arguement, but he also agrees with it, as he says it is an accepted arguement and is not refuting it. Yahel Guhan 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In the part you quoted, he is merely presenting the two common "answers". Immediately afer describing the first answer he says "This answer touches on some truths, yet it misses many others." Thus Kramer partially agrees with but also partially disagree with it. Please not that this article is not "Allegations of Islamic antisemitism".Bless sins 10:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And you censored out the part about his partial agreement with that belief. How conveinent. It goes against your worldview, so you remove it. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And btw, if you read the top of his article, it says "It's not just about Israel, but neither is it the nature of Islam." He is refuting both "answers".Bless sins 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. He isn't "refuting" nothing. He is explaining and examining both points, but he doesn't specificly "refute" anything. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He specifically says that the argument is held by people other than him. He also says antisemitism is not about the "nature of Islam".Bless sins 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are playing your old tricks again, making up interpritations for what he makes perfectly clear. Show me where he says it "is not the 'nature of Islam'". (By show, I mean copy the paragraph, and bold the relevant part, like I did above). Yahel Guhan 05:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<re-indent>Go read the article, before you accuse me of playing tricks. The very top says "by Martin Kramer. It's not just about Israel, but neither is it the nature of Islam."Bless sins 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read the article, and it seems you are back to your title=subject arguement. I ask you specificly why you are censoring out material which I clearly pointed out to you is sourced properly. Yahel Guhan 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So when I refute one of your allegations, you come back with more. Very well then: can you copy and paste the content you want included.Bless sins 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn I already did this, but since you are forcing me to repeat myself again, oh well. Here are his direct quotes that I want included in the article (either as a direct quote or in a way that doesn't change the meaning):

At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, relates the Qur'an, some Jews engaged in treachery against him. This is recorded in the Qur'an as God's word.

No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds Yahel Guhan 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The second part is already included as "There is no doubt that such use of Islamic tradition, according to Kramer, provides the sources that feed antisemitism".

The first part is taken out of context. I will provide the context for you:

The two most common answers...Let me begin with the first: the idea that Islamic prejudice against the Jews goes back fourteen centuries, that Islamic theology is ipso facto antisemitic. At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, relates the Qur'an, some Jews engaged in treachery against him. This is recorded in the Qur'an as God's word...This answer touches on some truths, yet it misses many others. One is that the Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places.(emphasis added)

I will add this, but only in the context given.Bless sins (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a prime example of your POV pushing. If something favors your pro-islam POV, you enthesize it, yet if it counters it, even if well sourced, you try to minimize the opinion. Yahel Guhan 07:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

seperation of the 20th and 21st centuries

I did this for two reasons. One, we seperate the 19th and 20th centuries, and two, the 20th century section is too big. It warrents seperation. Yahel Guhan 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The 21st century is merely a continuation of the twentieth century. The reason that separating 19th century from 20th makes sense, is because at that turn of the century Zionism became more active.Bless sins 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The 20th century section is big though. They disserve seperation for that reason. Also, the 21st century is more current, while the 20th century is more history. Yahel Guhan 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a stylistic argument? Or are there some underlying factors that you both are skirting around rather than saying upfront? Perhaps it's the Sermon subunit, which looks unusually long with over-use of quotes. While I agree that many of the quotes exemplify anti-Semitism, it isn't so much our role to compile such quotes (original research) but to report on secondary sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For me it is stylistic. I don't know about Bless sins. Yahel Guhan 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For me it is a bit stronger than stylistic (though not at all a policy violation). Now consider the "sermons" section. There is point in dividing it into 20 and 21 centuries, esp. since the theme is same. Same goes with reconciliation efforts. If there were some reconciliation efforts made in the 1990s, and then in 2000s, there will be no point in dividing them up by century. It disrupts the theme, and reduces those sections of the article to a list.Bless sins 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't lile working with "what if" scenarios. The article mentions efforts and sermons, but all of the ones mentioned occured post 2000, so I don't see what the issue is here. Yahel Guhan 01:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want we can separate the sections by the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a conflict which scholars agree has played a major role in this subject.But separating by the year 2000 is quite random. Muslim actions are not governed by Gregorian centuries.Bless sins 03:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No way. That is the most POV way to seperate these, and seems to be perfectly in line with your POV goal for this article (to say there was no antisemitism in the Islamic world until Israel, and only anti-zionism since). It is much better to seperate it by a standard; one hundred years. At least that is neutral. Yahel Guhan 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The one hundred standard is random. Articles ought o have some order to them not randomness. Besides, there exists a strong argument (albiet considered false by some) that antisemitism is the cause of zionism. Sections don't imply truth. For example, if creating the section "Qur'an" implied that antisemitism is the result of the Qur'an, the section would have been deleted some time ago.Bless sins 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing random about 100 years, and in my opinion it is a neutral period. It is a very even and common time period to break up history. yes, sections don't imply truth, but they can be easily broken in a manner to push a POV. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So should I challenge the existence of the "Qur'an" section, claiming that it exists to "push a POV"?Bless sins 06:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

the way you broke it up, it is pushing a POV. Yahel Guhan 05:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. The way the article is broken in up in a Qur'an section also pushes a POV. Also please take note of the famous philosophical/scientific principle: Correlation does not imply causation. Observing when things happened doesn't imply that things happened because of it.Bless sins 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Yahel Guhan 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<re-indent>That the existence of a section does not imply that topic is the cause of antisemitism. Making the section "19th century" doesn't imply that years beginning with 18XX were responsible for antisemitism, no more than a section "Creation of Israel" or "Arab-Israeli conflict" imply that those respective topics are a cause of antisemitism.Bless sins 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and I know that is exactly the POV you are trying to push, which is exactly why I oppose it. You are clearly trying to push the POV that the arab israeli conflict is the cause of islamic antisemitism, which is a POV that should not be emphesized in this article for the puropse of NPOV. Yahel Guhan 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Exactly" That means you agree with me. Please read my post carefully. Take notice of the words "not" and "doesn't imply".Bless sins 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you. I do not want this article seperated by the arab-israeli conflict; it needs to be something more historically generic for the purpose of NPOV. Yahel Guhan 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most significant aspect of history in the relations of Muslims and Jews.Bless sins (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. Yahel Guhan 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the turn of the century is not a significant part. If you disagree, would you like to provide a counter example?Bless sins (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it even matter. The turn of the century is neutral. The arab-israeli conflict is POV. If that was the deviding line, it would be clear that you were trying to push a very obvious POV in this article, which I intend not to let you do if at all possible. Yahel Guhan 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The turn of the century is insignificant. Do you want to talk about neutrality? Why not divide the entire article by 'turn of century'? Let's remove the Qur'an and Muhammad sections, and divide it up as a date? Agree?Bless sins (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you say the turn of a century is "insignificant." It is one of the biggest deviders between time periods out there. If you wish to devide the quran and muhammad sections by century, I'll support that. (though it will still be obvious what we are talking about. Yahel Guhan 04:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosenblatt and Pinson

Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Quran teaches the toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith.[12] Schwietzer and Perry argue that the Quran ([Qur'an 4:157]) clears Jews from the accusation deicide, and states "they [Jews] killed him [Jesus] not". They also argue that the Jewish Bible has not been incorporated in the Islamic text, and "virtuous Muslims" are not contrasted with "stiff-necked, criminal Jews".

I decided to move this section into the "interpritations" section, as it is more of an interpritation of the quran than it is about muslim theology. Yahel Guhan 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case everything is an interpretaiton. Even the "Remarks on Jews" is an interpretation. The point is that the above is very much related to Muslim theology, and it mostly about Judaism and not Jews. ALthough the part about deicide could fit in either "Remarks" section or "Judaism [in theology]".Bless sins 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews are (at least at the time of the qur'an) followers of judaism. The problem is everything in the quran and everything that happened with muhannad is related to muslim theology, the attacks included. We shouldn't be discriminating between the quotes bless sins prefers and the ones bless sins doesn't like as much. Yahel Guhan 01:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What really distinguishes the two sections is "theology" (admittedly a bit vague) but more importantly is that one section talks about Judaism, while other talks about certain Jews. The section about Judaism discusses general and sweeping claims the Qur'an makes about the religion, while the section about Jews refers to Jews at a certain time and place.Bless sins 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

quran section merge

I think it is best that we merge all sections here into two sections. The "remarks" and "interpritations." This is the most neutral way to handle this so that all views are represented and all views are presented without giving undue weight to anyone. The tolerence section shouldn't be on its own, and neither should the apes and pigs section. Yahel Guhan 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems consistent with my own view (above, 13:34, 21 Oct) but perhaps Bless sins objects? HG | Talk 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For me it is not a burning issue. The "interpretations" that are about Jews may be merged in the section about "remarks". But the tolerance section and the section on theology should remain seperate. Bless sins 22:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

why? Yahel Guhan 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because "remarks" and "criticism" of Jews are different from what should be done with Jews. Yes the Qur'an says (some) Jews are very bad people, but then it also gives advice on how to treat them. Describing someone, and taking action against them are two different things.

Also, Qur'an makes a distinction between "Jews" and "Judaism". For example it criticizes Jews for violating Sabbath (a tenet of Judaism, not Islam). Thus, while the Qur'an gives Jes a negative view, it gives their religion quite a positive one.Bless sins 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But why must the tolerence section remain seperate? It is just another POV section. Yahel Guhan 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the tolerance section doesn't describe the Jews. It makes no comment on whether they are good or bad. It just gives instructions on how to deal with them. Besides, according to WP:NPOV every source is "biased", thus every thing is someone's POV. You need to come up with a better way to explain yourself, and not label something POV.Bless sins 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The tolerance section describes treatment of jews according to certian opinions. Therefore it would be better to put it all under a header like "jews." POV most certianly is an arguement. Yes, most sources are bias, but there is a neutral and a bias way to state their opinions. I think you prefer the bias way. Yahel Guhan 18:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to "All [not most] editors and all sources have biases". One section is about description of Jews, the other is about tolerance of Jews. These are different topics. Also please don't make personal attacks.Bless sins 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt the issue is that trivial for you, so why don't you state the real issue with combining them. Yes, the topics are different, but they are the same topic; what the quran says about jews, their treatment, etc. They aren't so different that they need different sections. Yahel Guhan 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "real issue"? I could ass you the same question, as to why you want a merger of topics. "the topics are different, but they are the same topic" What do you mean by that? If you mean the topics are similar I agree. But keeping them separate keeps the article more organized.Bless sins 07:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is the topics are so similar, they don't warrent seperation. They are not different enough to need a new section. The article is organized enough. We do not need a theology section that is all "not antisemitism" and a tolerence section, and then censor out words like "attacks" in place of "criticisms." The combination is just POV. It is better just to put everything into one section. Yahel Guhan 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, organization is a good thing, not bad. The topics are similar (ofcourse every topic in this article is connected to another), yet they are distinct as well. I don't see any problem at all with sectioning, esp. since one section would contain a lot of content. How is the combination POV?Bless sins 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just have no headers other than "Qur'an"? Nothing is wrong with organization, but the distinguishing is adding POV, by putting all the sections which present islam in a positive light are devided up, while the attacks section is shrunk and recieves light language. "Criticism" in place of "attacks" furthers this pro-islam bias, by stating it is a legitimate opinion on jews rather than a vicious ad hominem attack. Yahel Guhan 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't have one section because (a) there is a lot of content, (b) the content is diverse in nature, (c) organizing is a good thing, not bad. "by putting all the sections which present islam in a positive light are devided up" That is only your perspective. I've come up with logical explanations for each section, while you have yet to do the same. " while the attacks section is shrunk" How did sectioning do that? Sectioning only divides the content not remove it. '"Criticism" in place of "attacks" furthers this pro-islam bias,' Then I guess the articles Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have to be changed? The reason "criticism" is used because "attacks" is generally interpreted as physical like a military strike. BTW, who said all "criticism" is legitimate?Bless sins 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A. There is not too much content

B. It isn't that diverse

C. There is nothing wrong with organization, when it is necessary and done properly.

That is only your perspective. I've come up with logical explanations for each section, while you have yet to do the same I don't see anything logical avout your organization; only POV.

Then I guess the articles Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have to be changed? The reason "criticism" is used because "attacks" is generally interpreted as physical like a military strike. BTW, who said all "criticism" is legitimate? No, they don't. They don't even compare. Criticism of Islam/Muhammad says that Islam is a false or immpral reason because of reasons X,Y,and Z. Attacks would state Islam is (bad characteristic 1,2, and 3) with no reasons presented. Understand the difference? The difinition of criticism is " the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything."[8] Thus by definition, it is a legitimite opinion. Besides, none of the scholars call it "criticism." They all use the term "attacks." Prehaps the best description would be "The qur'an uses harsh language to describe Jews." At least that fits every one of the scholar's perspectives mentioned. Yahel Guhan 05:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A. I've seen smaller sections.

B. That's relative as well, depends on how much diversity is "diverse" enough.

C. It is logical: the sections are divided in terms of the topic discussed (Judaism the religion, and Jews the people), as treatment to meted out on Jews (the tolerance section).

"Thus by definition, it is a legitimite opinion." SO you are saying that wikipedia should consider the view that "Islam is a false [religion]" as a "legitimate opinion"?Bless sins 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A. Whats your point? Just because there have been smaller sections doesn't mean that we need to have smaller sections. B. by dicerse, I mean they are completely different topics. C. Logical only in terms of POV. The pro-Islam sections are seperated, while the critical of islam sections are condensed. They are not organized by topic, they are devided by how bless sins can make certian sections more visible than the sections which show islam is antisemitic. The view that "Islam is a false [religion]" most certianly is a legitimite opinion. What is not legitimite about it? Yahel Guhan 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A. I'm saying that smaller sections than what we have are common on wikipedia.

B. They are different topics. Yet they are connected to each other well.

C. "The pro-Islam sections are seperated," That is only your POV. IF you WP:AGF, then you'll see the logic as well.

"The view that "Islam is a false [religion]" most certianly is a legitimite opinion." Ofcourse not. Taking aside historical evidence, there is scientific evidence supporting the authenticity of the Qur'an. However, we are not here to discuss this. And I could similarly say that Qur'an opinion about Jews are also very legitimate. But that is simply a matter of POV. If you are confused, we can pursue this elsewhere.Bless sins 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A. So what? You didn't respond to what I wrote. You just repeated yourself (again). B. Their "difference" is very minute. C. I do see the logic. You are here to push your pro-islam bias (you even say so on your userpage- just in a less harsh way Since I'm a Muslim, I like to edit and create articles dealing with Islam and Muslims ). WP:AGF applies when you don't know better; I do in this case. "historical evidence, there is scientific evidence supporting the authenticity of the Qur'an" and there is significent evidence stating that hte qur'an proves Islam is false. But I do not wish toget into this debate. Your claims that the qur'an opinions are "legitimate" are really just insulting. The verses are not legitimite, they are antisemitic verbal attacks against jews, which make no legitimite point. Show me one scholar who uses the word "criticisms" to describe the verses. The vast majority of scholars don't even call them that. They call them "abusive, attacks, harsh, cruel, etc. but not criticisms. Yahel Guhan 02:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not been following this, and I can't easily see from the above what the issue actually is. Is it being suggested that whether Islam is a "false religion" should be discussed in the article? If it is, then what are the good sources that have raised such a question? For most people, the idea of a "false religion" is just a nonsense. If you follow Christianity, for example, then you do not believe that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets. If you follow Islam you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The two belief systems are incompatible. That does not make either of these great religions "false", just different. Itsmejudith 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This debate is over whether "attacks" or "criticisms" is the best description of the antisemitic verses in the quran. I believe if you follow Christianity, you believe Christianity, and not Islam is the true religion, and vice versa. Thus you believe the other religions are false. This seems more like a language issue. Yahel Guhan 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

{re-indent}I posted a discussion here. The response was that the words like critic may be used. It also said that presenting a view that Islam is immoral or false would violate WP:NPOV.Bless sins (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Apparently you are having troble reading. What User:Shirahadasha said in that discussion is that presenting a view that Islam is immoral or false does not violate NPOV if attributed properly, is notable, and is given due weight, all of which call for "attacks" to be used in place of "criticisms." If you want, we can restore the scholars names who use the words attacks, then the use of "attacks" would be in line with wat he/she said. Yahel Guhan 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lewis's definition

Bless sins, I had a question: Lewis's definition of antisemitism seems to be relevant: "antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil." Would you please explain why you are removing it. Thanks --Aminz 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I did it because Lewis says "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil."

However, I think I may have been mistaken. We can still quote Lewis saying that "Jews are accused of 'cosmic evil'" and that such an accusation didn't exist in the Islamic world.Bless sins 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 addition

Arrow740 all content in this article must be relevant to antisemitism. That means the source must discuss it in the context of antisemitism. The source you're adding doesn't deal - at all - with antisemitism, Judeophobia etc. Therefore it's irrelevant.

Regarding "their Muslim brothers", this is what the news article itself says.Bless sins (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure i'm understanding your argument here. the rephrase you've made: i.e "Muslims attacked synagogues in retaliation for damage done to their brothers in the Palestinian territories" would be far more accurate if you had used "muslim brethern" (rather than 'brothers').. is this phrasing a reasonable suggestion for you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major difference between the two. Your version seems to be a good compromise.Bless sins (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

sources

Bs, i'd like an explanation to the removal of sources and the related text [9] (per <ref>Maxime Rodinson, ''Muhammad.'' Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1971, page 254.</ref><ref>Muir (1912) p. 377</ref>) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither Muir, nor Rodinson discusses antisemitism. This article is about Islam and antisemitism. Material that is on Islam, but not on antisemitism, belongs elsewhere.Bless sins (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

it would seem appropriate to write in half a paragraph about what muhammad (pbuh) did to the husband of the jewish woman he married (and the extra input about the woman). there is room to write it in with a bit less accusative tone... i invite you to rewrite the text to try and find a version that includes the input in a fair way.[10] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we can write it. But the problem is that there are no sources that deal with Kinana and antisemitism. If I (or anyone else) didn't use appropriate sources, and fabricated a connection to antisemitism, where the sources don't make any, then we'd be violating WP:NOR.Bless sins (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

the article does not accuse him of killing the man out of anti-semitic motives... it is a due addition to the "he's not antisemitic" note made by the mention of him marrying a jewish woman.

Muhammad is also known to have Jewish friends.[35] In 629, Muhammad married a Jewish woman called Safiyya. According to Poliakov, "the degree to which Muhammad shows his respect for each religion [Jews and Christians] is remarkable".[21]

are all these sources discussing anti-semitism? that is clearly not the main point of adding encyclopedic input to this section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all these sources are discussing antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

antisemitism or not, it would seem appropriate to write in half a paragraph about what muhammad (pbuh) did to the husband of the jewish woman he married. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be relevant in Muhammad and Jews, but not here.Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian book cover

The article now discusses the book explicitly in context, so a fair use claim is valid. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's addition

Arrow, how is your addition relevant to antisemitism. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to Safiyya. I didn't add the original material about her. Arrow740 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to "antisemtism". I know it is relevant to Safiyya. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If she's going to be mentioned there should be some background. Arrow740 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In antisemitism, the motivation for actions is that a person is a Jew, that there is something wrong with the Jews (just as racists think blacks are inferior because they are black).--Be happy!! (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place at Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Arrow740_addition. Something is related to antisemitism, if a reliable source says its related to antisemitism. It's not related, if a reliable source can't be found connecting it to antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My comments being removed

IF you are the person who removed my comments as a 'personal attack' can you please specify who you are, otherwise I will just put back in what I wrote before if you cannot either clarify you rpoint or what authority you have to remove my comments.86.150.147.133 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC) user: R.G.P.A

Never mind, I see it was the same editor who I criticised anyway, yet I find it intriguing he didnt bother to sign his comment or specify anything in his complaint. I have repalced my comments until my requests are fufilled.86.150.147.133 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you make personal attacks, they will be removed. Yahel Guhan 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please get an account. I strongly suggest this. Creating an account is actually very easy.Bless sins (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reza Shah?

"In Iran, Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany, making the Jewish community fearful of possible persecutions; the Iranian public at the time was anti-Jewish.[78]"

Reza Shah seeked economic support from Germany in order to offset the British Empire and Russian Empire spheres of influence. He officially declared himself neutral during WWII. This statement is most likely a response to the fact that Reza Shah demanded that the exonym for Persia be changed to Iran, and appears to be speculative. It's also kind of funny, because Ayatollah Khomeini accused the Pahlavi dynasty of being Jews. Secondly, "The Iranian public was anti-Jewish" is a racist, stereotypical statement in itself. The Iranian public wasn't even represented beyond parliament in the monarchal system, so such a statement is baseless and indefensible. Thirdly, the Pahlavis were not devout Muslims, they were Pan-Iranists. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You can check the source here (p.46) Yahel Guhan 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the source. Firstly it says that there was no persecution of Jews, but there were only anti-Jewish articles in Persian media. Secondly the article says "anti-Jewish sentiments acquired an ethnonational character, a direct import from Germany." Thus the cause and motivation for such sentiments were Nazism, not Islam, and their character was Persian not Muslim.Bless sins (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Persian muslim. Reza Shah was a muslim. I think I'll make a couple corrections. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Khomeini, who was a Muslim, has denounced him severely. The shah represented secularism and Persian nationalism (which is why he was overthrown by the Muslims). Secondly, the book makes it clear that the motivations were nationalist and nazi, making no mention of Islam.Bless sins (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So we are going to give undue weight to Khomeini? The shah in 1979 was a different person than Reza. And secular does not mean "non-muslim." Secondly, the book does mention the "Shia religous". Yahel Guhan 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think certain factors are being ignored here. Trade and relations with Hitler does not automatically equate one as an anti-Semite. That is a logical fallacy. I do not know if that is what you are suggesting, but I am under that impression considering the current wording within this article. I suppose a fair argument could be that Hitler pressured Reza Shah to do certain things (e.g. the exonymic name change from Persia to Iran; meaning "Land of Aryans"), but Reza Shah himself declared neutrality during World War II and, as the source itself states, no out-of-order persecutions took place against Jews. This fear was entirely speculative. Moreover, any persecutions that took place during that time period would have been related to Aryan theory, which does not necessarily pertain to Islam. This article is specifically about Islam and antisemitism. Reza Shah was a Pan-Iranist; he even tried to initiate a plan to purify the Persian language of all Arabic words (similar to Kemal Ataturk in Turkey; another ultra-nationalist). The source validates everything that I have said. "Unlike the religiously motivated prejudice, anti-Jewish sentiments acquired an ethnonational character, a direct import from Germany." The source does make mention of the Shi'ite clergy's marriage to these modern constructions of secularized racism, but Reza Shah wasn't a cleric (nor was he particularly religious). Further, that brief marriage had more to do with rumors of Hitler's conversion to Islam, which were ultimately false. The source does state that, also. Regardless, the sentence in question is not about the Iranian clergy, but about Reza Shah and the general Iranian public. The article never makes mention of common folk during this time period; the claim against the general Iranian public is still baseless, since the article only makes references to intellectuals, the clergy as a collectivity, and the more educated, well-to-do segments of Iranian society. The majority of the Iranian public during the 1920s and 1930s would have been illiterate, anyway. For the record, Reza Shah was a modernizer just like his son; he went into villages and destroyed them and the villager way of life (most notably the Bakhtiaris and nomadic groups in Khuzestan) and tried to encourage urban migration.

As a side note, this article could be improved if it expounds on the Safavid era, which was a different Persian dynasty. They did persecute the Jewish community is Iran heavily. I believe, although not entirely certain, that they created the practice of "Jewish badges" in order to make Jewish people readily identifiable; a practice Hitler used centuries later. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the new edit; great change. I was writing that big post above while it occurred. It is much more forthright and true to the history. Good job, Yahel. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, does the source mention "antisemitism"?Bless sins (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of that game. Yahel Guhan 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So I presume you admit this is irrelevant? I'm only asking you a question. Maybe this is relevant. But if you fail to answer, I have no reason for assuming so.Bless sins (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of corse it is relevant. Yahel Guhan 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless the source specifically indicates antisemitism at this point in Iranian history had an Islamic character, or was related to Islam in some way other than the fact that most Iranians are Muslim, it is irrelevant to this article. Relata refero (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is easy to draw a conclusion about a particular religion if its followers commit an action.

For example: did you know that the Mongol empire, which commanded the killing of millions of civilians (upto 2 million alone during the Battle of Baghdad) was majority Shamanist/Buddhist? Does this mean that Buddhism or Shamanism encourages mass killings of civilians? Ofcourse not!Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote-farming

Yahle removed a verse becaue he beleived it was "quote farming". Maybe that's a good thing. However, we have a LOT of quotefarming in the section "Islam_and_antisemitism#Arab_sermons". What about those?Bless sins (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

literature quote

Why was this removed? Bless sins, you said in the literature section. Where in the literature section? Yahel Guhan 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in the fifth paragraph:

According to Schweitzer and Perry, some literature during the tenth and eleventh century "made Jews out to be untrustworthy, treacherous oppressors, and exploiters of Muslims". This propaganda sometimes even resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Jews, causing causalties in Egypt. An eleventh century Moorish poem describes Jews as "a criminal people" and blames thier "wealth and domination" for exploiting and betrayal Muslims, worshipping the devil, and poisoning patients, food and water.[47]

I even said this in my edit summary.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Muslim world during modern times

"According to Mark Cohen, Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs." If this is the case, then shouldn't this be included under Arabs and antisemitism instead? Otherwise this comes across as a synthesis of information. Unless the cases specifically involve Islam, then they shouldn't be included. Arab and Muslim are not interchangeable anymore than European and Christian are. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the part: "(and only subsequently was it "Islamized")."

Perhaps we should shorten this to: According to Mark Cohen antisemitism entered Muslim Arab society after having been imported by Christian Arabs.Bless sins (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Islam and Arabs are not the same thing, which is why we have Islam and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that side note, but I think the quotation, rather than the parenthetic side note, suggests that religiously motivated antisemitism as we know it today in the Middle East is a relatively new ideology. I think that ought to be expounded upon, especially if this article is on Islam and antisemitism, rather than Arabs and antisemitism. Pan-Arabism was the dominant ideology in the Arab world until around the early 70s, after all. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kramer quote (again)

I am restoring the full quote here because the summary is POV, inaccurate, bias, and misses half the important detials. If we are going to summarize it, we are going to summarize it properly, leaving ideas in the order Kramer mentions them, and we will not nitpick what we like from them and enthesize that, while ignoring the parts certian users dislike. Yahel Guhan 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific. I think the summary of the quote is fair. Please be sure to not give Kramer undue weight in the article (which is what happens when you place long quotes. Is there any specific thing you object to? If yes, state it. In the spirit of avoid edit wars, I'd like to work out some compromise with you.Bless sins (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is selective enthesis. "that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslim antisemites" is the last thing Kramer says, and he puts hardly any enthesis on it being "selective and distorting." Keep the sentences in order, and as I said a long time ago (and have no intention to repeat), you left out important detials of his speech, and deenthesized them because it doesen't fit your POV pushing agenda. Yahel Guhan 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First things first. We can't discuss like civilized people if we make personal attacks on each other. "it doesen't fit your POV pushing agenda" is certainly a big no no. I definitely agree to not attack you and commnicate in a civil manner. Do you agree on the same?Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Any suggestion on how to fix the problem, or should I write a new summary? Or should we go with the full quote and wait for some neutral uninvolved editor to write one? Or do you want to write it properly? Yahel Guhan 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the summary in the article so you know my position. Now you write a brief summary to express your position. Then if I disagree I'll write a summary that is closer to your position. If you still disagree the you can write a summary that closer to my position...Bless sins (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel please lets use talk. The summary you added repeated many things. "Kramer states that Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes. The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews." is mentioned in another section. The rest of the summary is also mentioned. I've modified my summary to include things it previously didn't. Are there any specific things missing from my summary?Bless sins (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss your summary. You left out everything that states Islam is antisemitic, basicly everything I wrote, and you took him way out of context. I'll remove some of the repeatition, and add some of what you added back, but the fact that he believes "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews" needs to stay for NPOV and accuracy. Yahel Guhan 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is not helpful. You need say specifically what I removed (quote it if necessary). "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews" is already included in the above section called "Jews".Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What you removed: "Kramer states that Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes. The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future. Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds." Basicly everything I added that he says that is not a praise of islam. In addition you misquoted and took things out of context. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan claims I removed the above, yet I'll show that I didn't.

"Kramer states that Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes"

My version says "Islam didn't hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes"

"The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future."

"the Qur'an speaks of Jews in a negative way...The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews"

"Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims."

"While traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews, it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims."

"There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds."

"use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism".

Once again Yahel Guhan is making allegations against me that are not true.Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, " Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future" is not the same as "the Qur'an speaks of Jews in a negative way...The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews" which leaves out the important detial about the time. Second, "While traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews, it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims" is also not the same as "''Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims". The first adds weisel words (while), and attempts to say something along "it isn't so bad, because other non-muslims had it just as bad." Third, your full quote was " Martin Kramer states that there is no doubt that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism". That is very different from "use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism", as it implies that the usage is wrong. You therefore took Kramer out of context. Kramer never makes that implication. In fact he implies that the usage is partially (though not fully) correct. Your version implies that the usage is completely incorrect. Big difference. Yahel Guhan 05:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First you claimed that I removed th entire thing. Now that I showed you that I didn't do, you are splitting hair about words. The "while" is actually taken right out of Kramer. He is the one who says that "while religious supremacism always coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, it also coloured the Islamic view of Christians and all other non-Muslims." Are you going to now argue against Kramer himself? You on the other hand are making original research conclusions. You are also duplicating the material, and it seems to be giving undue to a POV. I've already said that we need to avoid giving undue wieght to some opinions above others. Please respect WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Implication of words is important. Any writer can take sentences from two completely different parts of the same text, combine them, and the impression one gets from reading it is completely different from that intended by the author. That is called taking someone out of context, and that is what you did. You took two seperate ideas, and combined them so they hold a different meaning. In that sense, you are giving undue weight. You are the one duplicating material to give a POV; you are duplicating the material that gives the impression that islam is not antisemitic (i.e. the "people of the book" line, the "tolerance" line), which is nentioned many times in the article, and is just repeatative and POV. Yahel Guhan 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have provided plenty of evidence above that I have quoted him fully. I also haven't duplicated material sourced to Kramer (you have). Per WP:UNDUE, I don't want to push one POV over the others. We should present all POVs fairly.Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You state you don't want to push one POV over others, yet your editing and writing shows something completely different. Yahel Guhan 06:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another unfounded claim.Bless sins (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already proved this in my last comment. Yahel Guhan 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You gave no diffs no comparisons etc. I wrote a lengthy reply to you unfounded claims before. You have thus little reason to reject my version or to make such accusations against me.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know what you are arguing about? Your last comment would imply no. Yahel Guhan 06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clear you have no more to say on the topic (though you have a lot to say on me, and what I'm arguing about). If you ever decide to get back on topic, I'd love to discuss.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. "You gave no diffs no comparisons etc." Firstly, the wording is not something that requires diffs. Second, I did give comparisions. "I wrote a lengthy reply to you unfounded claims before. You have thus little reason to reject my version or to make such accusations against me" And I gave a lengthy reply in response, which you still didn't adequately respond to. Yahel Guhan 06:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, I responded to all your arguments. If there is any I have mistakenly not responded then please quote the concern so I have a better idea of what you're talking about.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You have responded to none of my arguements. You can start by responding to my comment about context above (which I have no intention of repeating). Yahel Guhan 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I have responded to at least some of your concerns. I gave a lengthy response on 05:21, 11 March 2008. If there is any that I haven't responded to please copy and paste it so I (and others watching) can know exactly what you are talking about. If you don't provide any specific concerns, I'll assume you have none.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to your "response" with my comment dated 05:39, 11 March 2008. You still havent adequately responded to my response. Explain your justification for misrepresenting Kramer's opinion, and taking him out of context. Yahel Guhan 06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I repeat my response:

• "Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews" is the same as "The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews" I don't see any difference. We keep either statement.
• "While traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews, it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims" is the same as "Religious supremacism colored the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims". Infact this is closer to what Kramer says. He says "while religious supremacism always coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, it also coloured the Islamic view of Christians and all other non-Muslims".
• "Your version implies that the usage is completely incorrect." Where did I says it is "incorrect"? He says "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." This is what my version says (though your version fails to point out that Kramer considers the use to be distorted).Bless sins (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"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" os not the same as "the selective and distorting use." That is taking things out of context. Yahel Guhan 06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did place it in context, (if you read my entire sentence). I notice you didn't respond to the other points.Bless sins (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you dodn't place it in context. You added "Martin Kramer states that there is no doubt that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism." Kramer doesn't state that like that. That is two seperate ideas that you synthized in order to change the meaning of his quote. My version "fails to point out that Kramer considers the use to be distorted" because Kramer never states he considers the use to be distorted. He says it is only a partial distortion, not a full one. Yahel Guhan 04:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what Kramer says

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."

I don't see the word "partial" anywhere. Nor do I see the word "full" in my version. Those two words (like other things) are a figment of your imagination.

Regarding "today's antisemites", Kramer gives as an example:

Does that mean that today's Islamic antisemitism has no grounding of Islam? No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds. Here is the mentor of Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah, pointing to the Qur'an as just such a source.

Thus there is no inaccuracy on my part. There is, however, selective quoting on your part.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can hop around the real issue all you want ignoring it, which is not the words "todays antisemites." The real issue here is the "selective and distorting use" wording, and you can read all of my above comments for specificly what it is; I'm not going to repeat myself again on that. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please respond to my last comment? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whats to respond to? Your last comment doesn't even relate to the issue. Yahel Guhan 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "selective and distorting use". Kramer says "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." This is similar to what my version says: "Martin Kramer states that there is no doubt that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism." Bless sins (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also if you think that the "todays antisemites" is not an issue, then why are you reverting me on that avenue? Why not revert me only where you disagree with me and not blanket revert as you are doing now?Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not similar. Kramer's version says it is also, meaning it is partially selective and distorting, partially correct. Your version makes it sound not partially, but completely selective and distorting, which is an exaggeration of Kramer's view. So there is no similarity. You are blanketly reverting as well; you just did so by removing the necessary attribution agian. Besides, it is all related. Yahel Guhan 04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kramer never says "partially". Never. I never say "completely". Never. Do not accuse Kramer and I of saying things we don't say. Stick to the facts. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but your version implies completely, while his version implies partially. Yahel Guhan 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"No" Thank you for admitting that. "imply"? If anything you are talking about subjectiveness here, that different people will interpret differently.

I'm reverting only the content I object to. But yourself admitted above that some of the content in question, wasn't the actual problem. If you don't have a problem with it, why revert it?Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also am reverting what I have a problem with. What part of my version related to the "todays antisemites" doe you object to? Yahel Guhan 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that I was defending my version, more than attacking yours. But now that you mention it, there are numerous problems with your version.

You repeat material alot. You mention "religious supremacism", amongst other things, twice, giving undue weight to the POV.

You also give Kramer too much space. Kramer's opinions should be mentioned but not be given more weight than others. Also you quote Kramer, without putting him in " " marks. Even if you do you risk making this article into more a quote farm than it already is (see the Sermons section).Bless sins (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned what is wrong with your version already. Misquotes are not acceptable. The article is a quote farm, because you lack the ability to properly summarize without being POV. That is why your summary is not acceptable. Religious supremacism is only mentioned once, and those issues have been fixed in Str's revision. Yahel Guhan 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have proven over and over, I have made no misquotation (though you have imagined Kramer to say things like "partially" which he does not say). SO you admit that you're making this article a quote-farm. I'd like to ask you to stop such behavior. It's counter productive.

"Religious supremacism is only mentioned once" Yahel Guhan, there is no point in giving false statements.

Religious supremacism is mentioned twice in your version:

Traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews; it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims.

Martin Kramer states that "Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes", that "Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews"...

Bless sins (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No no no no no. As you have repeated, not proven, over and over, you claim to have not misquoted, yet anyone with common sense who reads your version and the source could easily tell it is a misquote. I think a quotefarm is better than a POV pushing misquote. Yahel Guhan 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this another false statement of yours? Every time you accused me of a misquotation, I proved the opposite. Is there any occasion on which I didn't do so? And please don't remove entirely information sourced to scholarly sources.Bless sins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A basic summary of your arguements: First I raise the point that you misquoted Kramer. Next you deny it. Then I prove it, then you deny it further, and say you already responded to my concerns and "proved the opposite" without actually doing so. Stop this lying nonsense. You are the one removing information sourced to scholarly sources. Yahel Guhan 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Lying nonsense" Please be WP:CIVIL. If you any specific concerns list them. I know you generally disapprove of my edits. If you have specific issues list them. I have listed specific issues (for example see my response on 04:58, 22 April 2008). Also you are removing information sourced to Norman Stillman and Jansen. What sourced information am I removing?Bless sins (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific issues list them I already did. I'm still waiting for you to adequately responded to them. We ahready discussed Stillman and Jansen. Do you wish to bring this dispute up again; I can always re-add Lewis' mention of the apes and pigs section, which you seem to have major objections to. What sourced info are you removing? When you misquote, you remove sourced info.Yahel Guhan 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And I beleive I responded to all your objections. Still, if you feel that my response was not adequate, or that I missed the objections please state it so I can give a more adequate response. "We ahready discussed Stillman and Jansen" And I believe the consensus was for their inclusion (though I remember you didn't agree). "What sourced info are you removing?" Since you didn't answer this question with specific info, I'll assume there is no information that I'm removing.Bless sins (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You responded to basicly nothing, rather you claimed to respond without actually doing so. There most certianly were objections to Stillman and Jansen. I just have no intention of repeating them. I also have no intention of repeating what you removed and misquoted, as I have clarified that several times already. Yahel Guhan 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't be bother to state your own objections then I can't be bothered with guessing what's in your mind. If you state a concern, I'll respond to it. If I've already responded to it, I'll repeat my response, again and again, until we reach consensus. But if you don't state your concerns then please don't expect me to guess them.Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you re-read the discussion, and figure out what you haven't responded to yet. I'm sick and tired of repeating myself. But since this is going nowhere, why don't we try something different. I made it clear my issue was giving undue weight to half of Kramer's view by taking him out of context, while ignoring his other views. So, why don't you make this easier, and write a new neutral summary which does not contain the words "The selective and distorting use" in the first sentence, nor take him out of context. Yahel Guhan 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll write a new summary that doesn't start with the words "The selective and distorting use" (even though I see this as pointless). "while ignoring his other views." Unless you tell me which views I'm ignoring, I really can't help. I'm sorry, but I'm not a psychic, I can't read minds. If you want me to know something, you have to type it out here. Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The new lead is an improvement, however you left out some important detials, which I added back in. The part about "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future." and "There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds". besides, he says it is also a selective and distorting use, not completely, as your new version still implied. Yahel Guhan 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as can be seen from your edit and edit summary, you "mass revert[ed]" me. You are again repeating stuff, and you removed the "distortion" section altogether. You also removed the "tolerance for Jews" section.

"however you left out some important detials," No I didn't.

"The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future." is included as "The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews" and "the Qur'an speaks of Jews in a negative way".

"There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds" is still in my version but very differently because of your requirement ' a new summary that doesn't start with the words "The selective and distorting use" '.

I noticed you added a paragraph (sourced to Lewis). You can give the full context of the paragraph, because from what I recall it is not blaming Islam for antisemitism. And from what I recall it said "There is little sign of any deep rooted emotional hostility directed against Jews - or for that matter any other other group - such as the antisemitism of the Christian world. There are, however, unambiguously negative attitudes."Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

When did I say it was "specificly" blaming Islam for antisemitism? Yahel Guhan 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...you didn't. I just thought that because you put in something in this article it had to do with Islam and antisemitism, and not Christianity and antisemitism. Since the Lewis quote is talking about antisemitism in the Christian world, and saying such emotional hostility didn't exist in the Islam, I'm removing the quote as irrelevant.Bless sins (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are many sources that call Hamas antisemitic, but The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) isn't one of them. Please find a source that actually calls the movement antisemitic.Bless sins (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

Phrases like "scholars of islam" and "there is nothing within Islam that can be considered antisemitic" is very POV, especially since it is not a united opinion. Rather, for the purpose of NPOV, it is necessary to attribute here. Yahel Guhan 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is there a contradiction? Is there any scholar on earth who says that these statements are false? "Scholars of Islam" is used because there are multiple scholars who say this.Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It contradicts Schweitzer and Perry's statement: "there is an antisemitic infrastructure extant in Islam." And "scholars of Islam" is used because you like that wording, because it supports your belief. No other reason. Yahel Guhan 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do S and P provide examples of "refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" in Muslim theology? Have you even read S & P (I have)?Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A diatribe is a denunciation. Therefore any antisemitism is an anti-jewish diatribe, and therefore it is a POV (which unsuprisingly, you still havent verified with the full quote). Yahel Guhan 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No criticism/refutation of Judaism is not antisemitism, (though "ferocious" criticism may well be).Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance? Yahel Guhan 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One word sentences don't convey much. If you are asking me a question, please state it clearly. I don't understand what the above is asking.Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh. What is the relevance of your last comment? Yahel Guhan 05:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to Lewis' comments which are in question here.Bless sins (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How so? Yahel Guhan 20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Lewis talks of "refutations of Judaism" and "ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" does he not? That's how the two are relevant.Bless sins (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The page is not avaliable in google books, and you have yet to provide a full quote. Second, even so, that doesn't change the fact that it is a single POV that is obviously disputable. Yahel Guhan 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to get the book from the library and only then I can give you the quote. Unless you believe I am misquoting Lewis (but you can't since you haven't read the book), I'm not obliged to provide a quote.Bless sins (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to Lewis' quote. Yahel Guhan 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, Schweitzer and Perry obviously disagree with Lewis and Chanes on this point, and the vague "scholars of Islam" violates both WP:V and WP:NPOV. Attribute claims to the people who make them. Please don't do this again, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "scholars on Islam", S & P do not disagree with the conclusions presented there, at least I have not seen any evidence of them refuting "The Qur'an, like Judaism, orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism. The Qur'an also rejects the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society. The Qur'an does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original message - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise." Bless sins (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So the part "that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" wasn't really written by Lewis then, was it? As your quote would prove, he never says that. Yahel Guhan 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V, name the people who provide opinions. If you find a dozen who say the same thing, then you wouldn't need to, but with just two, you obviously do. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Per what clause of WP:V? Also, two is not enough but twelve ("dozen") is. Where is the line drawn?Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The line is drawn by common sense. Name your sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this "common sense" in any policy. Infact, I see that in most of wikipedia one source is often enough in making something a fact. The two sources are Lewis and Chanes.Bless sins (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So name them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is (of course) right.

Just write : "according to ..., bla bla bla".

Ceedjee (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Koran

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him). [9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

May Allah destroy them isn't a very compassionate thing to say about Jews and Christians. --69.234.190.241 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read also the explanation of the Qu'ran to understand where you talking about. Thank you. A. Overmars145.92.219.178 (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which explanation? Anyway, more verses: [2.96] “And you will most certainly find them [Jews and/or Christians] the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists; every one of them loves that he should be granted a life of a thousand years, and his being granted a long life will in no way remove him further off from the chastisement…” [4.160] “Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.” [9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him). “O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah's way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's way, announce to them a painful chastisement,” So now Jewish rabbis and Christian monks take away property from people. “[4.51] Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They believe in idols and false deities and say of those who disbelieve: These are better guided in the path than those who believe. [4.52] Those are they whom Allah has cursed, and whomever Allah curses you shall not find any helper for him.Those ( Jews) are they whom Allah hath cursed.” Those to whom a portion of the book has been given are Jews and Christians. “[5.12] And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My apostles and asslst them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way. [5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others). [5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.” “[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”--69.234.212.22 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and Anti-Semitism!??

I have put a dispute tag under the Qur'an section. Please check Qur’an 9:97 The Arabs are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger. Note some translators have changed "Arabs" to "The Arabs of the Desert". I know enough Arabic to understand the original Arabic also. «اَلاعَرْابُ اَشدَّ كُفراً وَ نفاقاً وَ اَجْدَرُ اَلاَّ يّعْلَمُوا حُدُودَ ما اَنزَْلَ اللهُ» There is no "Desert Arabs". It just says "Al-'Araab" (The Arabs). Note you will not find such a harsh statement against Jews in the Qur'an. Yet there are verses in the Qur'an to show that Jews were chosen above other nation (or at least in a specific time). So I think the mention of the Qur'an should be taken out of this article. Or at least the above verse be mentioned. The Qur'an from my viewpoint is not meant to be anti anything. Indeed, the Qur'an says that the person who is superior is the one that is the most pious (no matter of what background). So piety defines superiority and ill-action defines inferiority. Irregardless of the background of the person, that is the Qur'ans viewpoint. Also the Qur'an recognizes Judaism and Christianity as legitimate paths. So the Qur'an is not anti anything. In fact most of the prophets mentioned in the Qur'an and praised in it, are Jewish. And Jews are mentioned to be favored by God (either at one time or maybe now, but it does mention favored). The Qur'an like any religious book can be read many different ways (depending on the maturity of the person). But inherently, the Qur'an can criticize Jews who worshipped the calf while mentioning Jews that worshipped God in the positive light. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tag because the tag in the lead covers the quran section, so it is repeatitive. You seem to base your comments on your own Original research. There are scholars who dispute your thesis, so it is included in the article. Yahel Guhan 02:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You should find 2nd sources ! None of us has the right to use 1st sources (ie, the Qur'an) on such issues because we don't know all that is written in that book what is considered relevant or not, how it evolved etc.

In the Torah and in the Evangiles, as well as in Marxism and Liberalism, there are terrible things too for the eyes of 21th century people.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You misquote the Koran there. Sura [9.97] "The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise."

Dwellers of the desert doesn't necessarily mean Arabs, you can be any race and dwell in the desert. Furthermore there are anti-Christian and anti-Jewish statements in the Koran. “[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him). [9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse. [9.33] He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse. [9.34] “O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah's way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's way, announce to them a painful chastisement,”--69.234.207.172 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The verse quoted here is totally irrelevant. Antisemitism means enmity towards Jews, be it as a religious or (more properly) an ethnic group. Whether the Quran has something bad to say of Arabs or desert dwellers or anyone else apart from Jews is of no consequence to this. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the context of Islam

"Antisemitism in the context of Islam" is only a fancy way of saying "Islam and antisemitism". In fact it is redundant. I think we should do away with the header as it serves no purpose.

Doing away with it, will also give us a lead, which is required for all articles per WP:LEAD. Rather than dispute over what constitutes a neutral lead, let's use this section as lead. I have noticed that neither I, nor Yahel Guhan make changes to this section when we edit/revert. This means we agree upon this section as neutral.Bless sins (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Selling alcohol

Yahel added "Later additions to the code included prohibitions on adopting Arab names, studying the Koran, selling alcoholic beverages, and so on."

Can you explain how prohibiting Jews from selling alcohol is antisemitic? Is prohibiting them from selling drugs also antisemitic?Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jews, unlike muslims, are not banned from drinking alcohol according to their religion, thus banning them from doing so is a limitation on their personal freedom, same as banning the study of the Qur'an or adopting Arab names. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Jews are not explicitly banned by the Torah from sniffing marijuana. Many anarchists claim that this is a limit on their personal freedom. Is prohibiting Jews from doing marijuana also antisemitism?Bless sins (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Egypt

Yahel also added: "During World War II Egypt was controlled by the United Kingdom. Cairo was a heaven for agents and spies thoughtout the war. Egyptian nationalists were active, with many Egyptians, including Farouk of Egypt and prime minister Ali Mahir Pasha, all of whom hoped for an axis victory, and full independence of Egypt."

The source doesn't seem to be mentioning either Islam or antisemitism. How this at all relevant to this article?Bless sins (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game. The fact that egyptians (who are muslims) spied for the axis/nazis against the allied powers, and hoped for a nazi victory in World War II is very relevant. It is obviously antisemitic, as the nazis were antisemitic. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you refuse to follow wikipedia's rules on original research? Aren't you the one who insisted upon high standards ([11]). I don't want to have to argue again repeatedly that just because Muslims are connected to something, it means Islam is involved. Please find reliable sources connecting this to Islam and antisemitism, and I'll have no problem including it.Bless sins (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Muslims are connected does mean Islam is involved. Muslims follow Islam. This information is no less relevant than the stuff about the "golden age in spain" stuff, which in no way relates to antisemitism. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Muslims follow Islam" Then you don't seem to know too much about Muslims. When Muslims drink alcohol, are they following Islam? Ofcourse not. Some Muslims will follow Islam, but most do what they desire. Infact, Egypt is not an Islamic republic, or atleast wasn't during world war II.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. Muslims following Islam means they believe in the teachings of Islam, and therefore they are muslims. If they don't, they are not. Even if they don't follow every single rule all the time, they can still be a follower of Islam, and therefore a muslim. Egypt was a territory occupied by the british during WWII, however, the Egyptians were still muslims. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Muslims today use cellphones, are you going to now create an article called "Islam and cellphones"? Muslims use cars, will you create an article called "Islam and cars"? How far will you go?

Oh btw, you source doesn't even say that Egypt is a Muslim country. In order to make the claim you need another source, and thus you're violating WP:SYNTH. If you don't ahve any argument to support yourself, I'll remove the original research.Bless sins (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Create those articles if you wish. I'm not, because I have more important things to do than write an article on those topics, but if someone else wanted to, I would not object.

This isn't about Egypt (the country). It is about Egyptians (the people who happen to live within the country). There is a difference. Get your facts straight. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your source above, doesn't call Egyptians as "Muslims". If it does, you must provide the quote, because I can't see that. Finally, until such articles are created it is to be assumed that the wikipedia doesn't follow such absurd logic.Bless sins (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a source to believe that the majority of Egyptians in the 1940's are muslims! How rediculous, something this obvious doesn not need a source. "until such articles are created" First of all, we don't assume. Missing articles doesn't warrent changes to this article. If it is that abusrd, create the articles yourself. I don't follow your strange logic here. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I need a source. Please provide one. "I don't follow your strange logic here." It is your logic that is strange here. Anyways, provide the source, and then things will become clear to you.Bless sins (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Large reverts

Yahel Guhan, can you explain yourself when you make such large reverts? ([12]) Essentially you're reverting longstanding material. You're free to do that, but you have explain yourself, either before or after reverting. Bless sins (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Basicly you censored out half of my additions with little, and very poor justification. That is why I reverted you. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "censor" anything. I re-included them, but organized them. Also, some of your additions were OR, as was determined by our discussions above, so I removed them. If you want to restart the discussion, you are welcome to. But if you don't, then you shouldn't bring that content in.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My version is 82,422 bytes. Your version was 80,973 bytes. Thus you removed content (censorship). Basic summary of your edits: You removed information that said according to Laqueur, muhammad killed Jews (sourced, and without explaining yourself), you censored out Lewis' mention of the apes and pigs, even though you never had consensus to do so. You misquote and censor out Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry, you censor out the quran verses, and you again misquote Kramer. You only made one helpful edit, summarizing Laqueur in the lead section, and that needed fixing. Thus censorship. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if my version was 82,421 bytes, I'd be technically "remov[ing] content (censorship)". Also, its not censorship to remove original research.

"Laqueur, muhammad killed Jews (sourced, and without explaining yourself)," Actually this is mentioned in Islam_and_Anti-Semitism#Muhammad. Muhammad also married a Jewish woman, but that is also not in the lead. We can't describe all his interactions with Jews in the lead, can we?

"you censored out Lewis' mention of the apes and pigs, even though you never had consensus to do so". The discussion above concluded that Lewis is never accusing the Qur'an of antisemitism. Infact, he said that Muslim attitudes are not similar to antisemitic attitudes found amongst the Christians.[13]

"You misquote and censor out Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry" How so?

"you censor out the quran verses" Where? Also, large Qur'an quotes are inappropriate for this article, especially if we have scholars saying pretty much the same thing.

"you again misquote Kramer" How so?

All you have said in your comments is "censorship" and "misquote" . You haven't bothered to explain yourself one bit.Bless sins (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not censorship to remove original research only if it actually is original research. But you have streached the definition of original research so many times to remove sourced content you don't like, that it is clear to me your goal is censorship, rahter than removing original research.

Two words won't kill anything, and it isn't specific (it doesn't describe which jews he killed, or whom).

Accusing or not, he is discussing the topic. His comment is definently directly relevant, even if it doesn't specificly state whether or not he thinks the verses are antisemitic.

For one, Schweitzer and Perry never say anything like "point out Qur'anic criticisms of some Jews for taking usury and consuming people's wealth, which was prohibited for them." That is a misquote.

You censored: "References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative. The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah," and "The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty"; in the form of the poll jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." Yet ordinarily, "the Jews' could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad. There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews" And quran verse listings are necessary not to be hidden. None are that large. They are improtant content. The scholars aren't saying the same things. They each point to different verses to make their points, and do not say the same things.

I told you already with Kramer. Kramer doesn't say muslim antisemites selectively distort the quran, as your version implies. He states it is partially correct, partially distorted. Big difference. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't describe which jews he killed, or whom" Exactly my point. Some Jews were killed, while others' lives were spared. Further Muhammad even married two. The lead must be short and concise.

"Accusing or not, he is discussing the topic" He is discussing Christian antisemitism. This article is about Islam and antisemitism.

"That is a misquote." If you're going to allege that, then you must provide the full quote to support your point.

"Kramer doesn't say muslim antisemites selectively distort the quran". Kramer says "Today's Muslim antisemites make ... a selective and distorting use [of the Qur'an]."Bless sins (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is my response to Yahel's long accusation of "censoring" me.

[Yahel:] You censored: "References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative.

My version: "Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that there are mostly negative references to Jews in the Qur'an and Hadith."

[Yahel:]The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah,"

My version: "According to Schweitzer and Perry, it says that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah,"

[Yahel:]In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels."

My version: "In another form of punishment mentioned in the Qur'an, God curses the Jews as apes and swine and idol worshipers because of their disbelief"

[Yahel:]Yet ordinarily, "the Jews' could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad.

Comment: Belongs on the section on Muhammad.

[Yahel:]There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews"

My version: "According to Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry, the Jewish Bible was not incorporated in the Islamic text ... and "virtuous Muslims" are not contrasted with "stiff-necked, criminal Jews"."

Thus, the material was not censored at all, but adapted to the format of the article.Bless sins (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, and the fact that some jews were killed by Muhammad needs to be mentioned, preferably in the lead. 2. Then you haven't read the quote. He is obviously talking about the qur'an. Apes and pigs is an islamic thing. 3. What part should I quote? He says nothing even remotely similar to what you wrote. You need to provide the quote if you are going to insist they say something even remotely like what you wrote. 4. Does not. Stop selectively misquoting and repeating yourself. We have already been through this, and I have no intention of repeating myself. 5. you forgot the other parts I was refering to. You only responded to half of the evidence of censorship. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Then you'll need multiple (say atleast 4) sources to show that it is notable enough.

2. Please post the quote. From what I see, he talks about Christian antisemitism. Here is a quote: "On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims is not one of hate or fear or envy, but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways..."

There is no mention of antisemitism on the part of Islam. Muslims are accused of "contempt", which Lewis thinks is not antisemitic (which he seems to think is "hate", "fear", and "envy").

3. The full quote please.

4. I have quoted Kramer directly from the website for you. You have not. "I have no intention of repeating myself" you don't have to - you're free to leave this article whenever you want.

5. Which other parts? Also, I responded to your evidence in detail, while you are simply making accusation not even trying to critically examine the evidence presented.Bless sins (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1. One is enough, and there are multiple. You do not get to put 4 source minimum on for inclusion, for that is an attempt to censor his views, especially considering it is already attributed. Besides, no policy requires 4 scholars to agree for inclusion.

2. I already did. I'm not repeating it.

3. You wrote it, you quote it. Or are you disputing my wording, in which case you need to specify exactly which part you dispute. From what I see, you are censoring my wording, and replacing it with wording you made up.

4. You have it backwords. I (not you) have quoted Kramer directly from the website for you. You have not.

5. you never responded to "The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty"; in the form of the poll jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels". You just censored that out. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You don't seem to understand the point of the lead. Just because one scholar has said something doesn't mean it should be in the lead. If that was the case, then the entire article could be placed in the lead. Items should be placed in the lead if they are notable (or repeatedly mentioned by scholars).

2. I don't see it. Unless you copy and past (which require only a Ctrl+c, highlight, and Ctrl+v), I won't know what your argument is. I've explained all my arguments, and will continue to do so. I expect the same from you.

3. You claimed that I removed the information sourced to the quote. I said no. If you want to show that you need to provide the entire quote from S and P.

4. In which comment of yours did you quote Kramer? I quoted Kramer in my post on 23:52, 24 June 2008. I'll quote him again: Kramer says "Today's Muslim antisemites make ... a selective and distorting use [of the Qur'an]." yet you seem to be disputing this (you said "Kramer doesn't say muslim antisemites selectively distort the quran")

5. I'll include your views in my edits.Bless sins (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. you are playing your games again. A lead is a summary, and two words does not change that. 2. Look better. I'm not wasting my time repeating myself to satisfy your inability to understand basic english. 3. I calimed that you distorted, and added things that weren't there, not removed information. But just to make it obvious, here is the relevant part you keep distorting by making changes which were never said:

"The Koran requires their "abasement and poverty"; abasement took the form of the poll tax and the humiliating ceremoney in which it was paid; in his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshippers because they are "infidels." The Hadith (tradition, law, legend) is even more scathing in attacking the Jews: They are debased, cursed, anathematized forever by God and so can never repent and be forgiven; they are cheats and traitors; defiant and stubbornl they killed the prophets; they are liars who falsify scripture and take bribes; as infidels they are rutually unclean, a foul odor emanating from them-such is the image of the Jew in classical Islam, degraded and malevolent."

4.You distort Kramer by leaving out the other part. I'm not repeating my arguement. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

al-Husayni and antisemitism

Please check Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Antisemitism. There is no consensus between references that al-Husayni was motivated by antisemitism. Imad marie (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

yes he was. The majority of sources make it clear that they think he was motivated by antisemitism, and that is enough to warrent its inclusion here. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quoting the following from User:Ceedjee:

• Katz and Pearlman consider he was anti-semite
• Elpeleg and Mattar that he was mainly nationalist while the first do not deny he was aware of the Shoah tragedy and the consequences of his own action on this.
• In his last book, Morris also argues he was anti-semite (but do not deny nationalism fight)
• Zertal thinks he was more a fanatic than an antisemite and that this is exagerated for political reasons

This different point of view are summarized by the Frecnh jouranlist Rouleaux but based only on Elpeleg and Mattar's works.

I think we have a good list of wp:rs sources to conclude there is a debate to see why he was so virulently anti-Zionist.

Also, in his memoirs, al-Husayni denies any ties to antisemitism, and says his war with the Jews was politician not religious. Imad marie (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

None of that warrents any removial of either his picture or the content about him. In fact, it makes it relevant. Political or not, he was a muslim religious leader, and what he did is relevant. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Husayni in Bosnia

Yahel, how did you interpret my edit as "censorship"? Why is "Al-Husayni visiting Bosnia and recruiting troops against Yugoslavia" related to "Islam and antisemitism"? Imad marie (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like an explanation. Bosniaks and the Serbs (constituting the dominant party in Yugoslavia) have had historic rivalries. This has little to do with antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How is "The Black Book of Bosnia by Nader Mousavizadeh, (Editor), Basic Books, New York, 1996" a reliable source?

The other source lists "hatred of both Zionism and British imperialism" and "his illusions that the Axis powers would guarantee the right of Arab national self-determination" alongside antisemitic motivations. Finally the source notes that Al-Husayni being "a genocidal antisemite in the service of Nazi Germany" is an "allegation", something that you don't in your version.Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because he recruted Bosnian muslim troops to join the Nazis, and the reason for that was because he was an antisemite. Therefore it is relevant. The other source never mentions that. What source are you talking about? YahelGuhan (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this conclusion is WP:OR. 1) al-Husayni recruited those troops to fight the Yugoslavs not to join the Nazis, 2)even if those troops joined the Nazi's their war was not against the Jews. 3) allying with the Nazi's does not mean you are anti-Semitic, do you call the Japanese anti-Semitics? Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Imad marie and Bless sins. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Imad's points:

• "al-Husayni recruited those troops to fight the Yugoslavs not to join the Nazis," - there are no Yugoslavs to fight. He recruited the troops to help the NaziGerman war effort in general.
• "their war was not against the Jews" - their war to a great extent was against the Jews. Hitler had to main objectives: conquer Lebensraum in the east and exterminate the Jews. When he saw that the first would fail he devoted more and more energy towards the second. It is another matter how far this objective can be ascribed to other agents involved.
• "allying with the Nazi's (sic!) does not mean you are anti-Semitic, do you call the Japanese anti-Semitics?" That is correct: allying yourself to the Nazis does not NECESSARILY make you an anti-semite. However, how was it that Hussein entered into that alliance? Was there a common enemy? Yes, there was: it was on the one hand the British but at least equally important the Jews.

My take is: Hussein was an Islamic antisemite who collaborated with NaziGermany. His actions can be very broadly be mentioned in this article. But only very broadly. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Colloboration with Nazis

There is a misconception that any colloboration with Nazis is antisemitism. For the user(s) who hold(s) this view, Collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany#Jews might be an interesting read. Unless one is about to label the Lehi (honoured in Israel, and including former Israeli priminister Yitzhak Shamir) antisemitic, collaborating with the Nazis against British doesn't necessarily imply antisemitism.

Colloboration happened for many reasons (such as desire for independence, as was the case with the Indische Legion), antisemitism being only one of them.Bless sins (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not neccessarily but if some collaborator is reported as also being an antisemite, this may be noted in relation to other things as well as mentioned in reliable sources. It shouldn't be overdone but it sure can be mentioned. Trying to make Mr Shamir an antisemite is nonsensical. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"if some collaborator is reported as also being an antisemite" then we include him. If some non-collaborator has been reported as antisemite, we include him too.

"Trying to make Mr Shamir an antisemite is nonsensical." Just goes to show you what users try to cook up in violation of WP:NOR.Bless sins (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that there was collaboration for opportunistic or nationalistic purposes. See Breton nationalism and World War II for example. There was a fuzzy line between collaboration and antisemitism. Bless Sins illustrated this with a colourful example, but it ventured into sensitive territory. Not necessary to pursue this. Stick to what the sources say. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)