Talk:1066 Granada massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion on Joseph ibn Naghrela

Islam and antisemitism[edit]

Can someone justify what this article has to do with the "religion of Islam"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talkcontribs) 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the first few paragraphs of the article, including the poem. Here is an excerpt:
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.

-- Avi 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You know "faith" has many meanings. Perhaps the breach of faith here is a reference to "violated our covenant" mentioned in the next line. And besides who is "Abu Ishaq" anyways? Finally, which reliable source says that this is an example of the teachings of the religion of Islam.Bless sins 05:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
When the poem has been held up as instrumental in inciting anti-Semitic feelings, it is a cited source for the claim. And unless you are willing to claim that you are 941 years old, I tend to think that Abu Ishaq had a better understanding of the socio-political rubric of the times than you or I do. Lewis seems to think so. -- Avi 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Has the poem been cited as a source of antisemitism? (I don't know, as I haven't read Lewis' book yet). And does Lewis say Abu Ishaq was an authority on Islam, representing the mainstream consensus of Islamic scholars on the interpretation of the faith?Bless sins 23:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we have agreed a long time ago that the history of antisemitism in the muslim world is releavant to Islam and antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
When was that? And history of antisemitism in the Muslim world would probably include the mass killing of Jews (and Muslims) after the Crusaders entered Jerusalem. Would that also be relevant to the topic?Bless sins 03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Right here [1] you are going to go back on your word already? The crusades is not an example of muslims being antisemitic now is it? It is christians. Yahel Guhan 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you quote me, because I still don't see if I've such a thing? The crusades happened in the heart of "Muslim world", the term you used as a criterion.Bless sins 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Wrong diff. I fixed it now "While history of Muslim antisemitism is relevant, WP:UNDUE implies." The crusades happened in Israel, but were not done by muslims, were they? So how it would be relevenat as well as this example makes no sense to me. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, note there was no such thing as Israel at the time. Whatever it was called it was under Muslim control and part of the Muslim world. Many atrocities have been committed by non-Muslims in the Muslim world. So you need to make a distinction. Secondly, I said "Muslim antisemitism". Yes, is there a source that says "Muslim antisemitism". If there is, then the category belongs.Bless sins 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about Israel? Read the first sourced sentence of the article: "On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day " Have you even read the article before making claims that scholars haven't interprited events this way? It seems more like you are trying to push your POV again based on your inability to check the sources already presented within the article. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No source says that this event was related to "Islam". Just because it happened in a Muslim kingdom doesn't make it so either. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'd like you to quote it.Bless sins (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you read Avi's quote? Besides, occurance in a muslim country by muslims is all that is necessary to make it relevant. Yahel Guhan 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

<reset>Yes I did see the quote. I didn't find any mention of "Islam" in the quote. Many things occur in Muslim countries: Muslim countries posses the tallest buildings in the world: Petronas Twin Towers in Malaysia, soon to be overtaken by Burj Dubai in United Arab Emirates - both Muslim nations. Does this imply a correlation between Islam and civil engineering? Or how about the fact that Muslim countries export the most petroleum? Does this imply a correlation between Islam and energy resources? I am still waiting for a reliable source that directly says that the event is both an example of Islamic teaching and antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, because as the quote says, "Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on" implies that the massacure was motivated by islam, and the people doing the massacure believed that to not massacure the jews would be against Islam. As for your building example, although those buildings were built in muslim majority countries, both of them had non-muslim architects. So that is a bad example. The oil existed pre-islam, and just happened to be in the middle east. There are plenty of sources already in the article. Yahel Guhan 06:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on" Funny, because I don't see the word "Islam" in there anywhere. Are you sure you see I-s-l-a-m there? "The oil existed pre-islam" So did antisemitism. Antisemitic persecutions in the Middle East and Europe existed long before Islam and prejudices against Jews did as well. See Antisemitism#Ancient_world for examples.Bless sins (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote was spoken by Abu Ishaq, who is a muslim. The "faith" refers to Islam. That is common sense. I know the history of antisemitism. This article refers to one specific event. Yahel Guhan 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I thought "faith" is spelled f-a-i-t-h, whereas "Islam" is spelled I-s-l-a-m - making them entirely different words. Nor is "faith" a synonym for "Islam". I have not seen one dictionary that says this.Bless sins (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how to interprit a quote using common sense, or is that a skill you lack? Yahel Guhan 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil. I ask that you provide me with reliable (scholarly) sources relating the event with antisemitism and Islam (both). Instead you've provided me with a medieval man who seems to be an unreliable source. He also doesn't happen to mention "Islam".Bless sins (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Abu Ishaq is a rs because it was quoted by Bernard Lewis. He makes the connection to islam from Antisemitism. He obviously is talking about Islam. He is a muslim telling muslims it is OK to kill them (the Jews). Yahel Guhan 04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Abu Ishaq is not a RS, Lewis is. "He makes the connection to islam from Antisemitism." No, no, no! Abu Ishaq doesn't say the word "Islam". I can read, I never saw that word. About "faith", Abu Ishaq clarifies in the next sentence that he is talking about "pact" and "covenant". I'm tired of repeating myself. Unless you bring a source that specifically talks about "Islam" I will remove the inappropriate category.Bless sins (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
He clarifies that he is refering to Islam. He is therefore enough to make the cat relevant. Yahel Guhan 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Provide the exact quote where "he" (who would that be?) connects Islam with antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I already did. But you are ignoring it. I'm not going to re-post it. Yahel Guhan 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Either repost the quote that connects "Islam" with "antisemitism", link your edit to it, or at least specify the time of your edit in which you posted it. If you don't I'll assume you never posted it. Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.

See it now? How forgetful we are. Yahel Guhan 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do not see the word Islam in there anywhere. Nor do I see the word "antisemitism" (but that is a secondary matter, more important is the connection to Islam). Also the source quoted is Ibn Ishaq, not a reliable source. If you want I can go to great lengths and prove that he's not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Back in circles again. You just repeated your whole arguement, ignoring my responses to it. Yahel Guhan 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's you who is putting this argument in circle by not responding to me. If you'd respond to me, then this argument would move forward. By now, however, it is clear that you have no quote that mentions "Islam". Hence I'm removing "Islam and antisemitism".Bless sins (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Yahel Guhan has quoted the following:

Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.

They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?

Could users kindly inform us whether the above connects Islam with antisemitism? I am unable to see wither word in it. (The "breach of faith", in my opinion refers to the "violated our covenant" (similar to breaking one's promise) that appears in the next stanza.) Also, users should consider the source of the quote. It is a medieval man, Abu Ishaq, who doesn't appear to have any credentials in Islamic studies nor studies on antisemitism. I will post something soon regarding this on WP:RSN.Bless sins (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I posted something here. I think using the poem to conclude that Islam caused an antisemitic act is like interpreting the primary source. This is not allowed under WP:PSTS.Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. It's Lewis' book about Jews in [blank]. Granada was a state with [blank] rulers. Lewis talks about a [blank] mob being incited by one Abu Ishaq, a [blank] name. So, in addressing that [blank] mob, what was the "faith" Abu Ishaq meant? Buddhism? rudra (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Bloody ridiculous. All the major sources place it in terms of a reaction to Berber rule, so the blanks in question would be not filled with what you think they would be. This constant re-interpretation of well-studied history in terms of our current obsessions tires me. I'm removing this ridiculous category until someone provides sufficient evidence that the academic community of historians is as prone to this disease as everyone on Wikipedia. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Present your sources, please. rudra (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I already have, on RS/N. Thomas Monroe has provided context. William M. Brinner, who's more than reliable on Jewish history in Spain, says that the poem is no longer considered by most scholars to have incited the riots. He notes, however, that the metaphor of Jews as apes and Christians and swines is common to polemical poetry from religious and secular sources, though in the latter they are "brought into proximity but not pictured as one and the same." He also points out that the poem is addressed to the Berber king about his minister, not to the common multitude, as it were. There's a history of the Sephardim from the University of Chicago Press - written by some Spaniard I've never heard of, though - that says the riot were "a reaction against a specific family". Whatever. If the Bat-Yeor-illuminated multitudes wish to push nonsense through, I'm sure they have the numbers.
Now, present yours. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Monroe (the only name you mentioned on RS/N) a historian? I thought he was in languages. As for sources, here, I'm going by Lewis. I read Fletcher's Moorish Spain quite a while back (after being impressed by his The Barbarian Conversion); I don't remember if he mentioned the poem specifically (I'll have to look that up again) but he did write about the 1066 incident. Right now, Google Books seems to be in a spot of trouble. On Google Scholar there are search summaries like these and these, the general purport of which appears to be that Ishaq incited the Berbers against the Jews. It would be interesting to know the scholars mentioned by Brinner. rudra (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"Ishaq incited the Berbers against the Jews" - wrong, as the ruling class was Berber, not the populace in general, who almost all muladíes. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A scholar "in languages" could be a perfectly appropriate source for the interpretation of a poem. Monroe is an expert (the expert?) on the literature of this period. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In which case the point would be: what was Abu Ishaq appealing to that got the mob so worked up? On Lewis' authority we have that Abu Ishaq used emotive, incendiary language: the issue then is how was such language effective in targeting the Jews? How, for example, could "they have broken the covenant" have been a cause for murderous outrage? What buttons did it push? Or were those a whole bunch of contextless generalities? rudra (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So rudra, you don't see the interpretation of "faith" as "Islam" to be a violation of WP:PSTS? Also, you're mistaken if equate faith necessarily with religion.
"Faith" is also equivalent to "promise",[2] or "convenant" as Abu Ishaq says. The dictionary also gives an example of such usage: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
Isn't this what Abu Ishaq says (he says "breaching faith")? It makes sense to "breach faith" or "break faith" when used in the sense of promise, but little sense when used as a religion.Bless sins (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, this is an English translation of Arabic - I think that you should be careful how much you read into a translation, as the ambiguity between faith [promise] and faith [religion] may not exist in Arabic, throwing your argument out the window. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to be fair to Bless Sins' point, it could be a mistake to focus on the word "faith" in isolation. Based on the repetition, the phrase "breach of faith" could be the unit of translation here. We'd really have to look at the Arabic (or was it Amazigh?) rudra (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Covenant? As in dhimma? rudra (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the proposed improvement to the article that is at issue here? Or is it just a case of general inter-religious sniping? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is whether Category:Islam and antisemitism applies to the article. rudra (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudra: So, for instance, if the poem used dhimma in both instances here translated faith, then the second "breach of faith" couldn't apply to religion, aye? That's why you have to watch translations. There's probably lots of cultural values built into a poem like this as well that would change how things should be interpreted. In short: Don't base your interpretation on ambiguous phrasing in a translation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Or the other way around, i.e. covenant for dhimma in "they have broken the covenant" (and possibly, breach of faith some culturally loaded word specific to breaking that covenant). Dhimma is specific to Islam, btw. rudra (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It would have helped a lot if editors had explained the question in the first place. There is not (yet?) any RS for applying that category. Article is already in a number of relevant categories. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh? Lewis is the RS who (a) identifies "Muslim population" (when he could have said, e.g., "Berber population") and (b) says "anti-Jewish". The category does not require a connection to be established, only that the two subjects be relevant. (And do you really expect to find a WP:RS ever saying about any historical incident, "This was about Islam and anti-semitism"? Please WP:UCS.) rudra (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

The others mentioned above are Brinner, William M.; "The Image of the Jew as Other in Medieval Arabic Texts", in Alai Alon, Ithamar Gruenwald and Itamar Singer (eds.) Concepts of the other in Near Eastern religions, Brill, 2003: pp 227-243. The crucial lines are: the poem is an instance of "pious Muslims opposed what they saw as royal favouritism to Jews and other Dimmis.."; in the poem, a "virulent attack on Joseph", "Abu pleads with Badis to rid himself of the Jew, and although scholarly opinion now generally rejects the view that this poem incited the riots and massacre of 30 December 1066... it is indicative of the expression of a pious jurist, hadith-specialist and Sufi. [Quote from poem] On the other hand, in many "secular" literary works, Jew and ape are broght into proximity, but are not pictured as one and the same." (whatever that last bit may mean.)
Díaz-Más, Paloma and Zucker, George, Sephardim, University of Chicago Press: p4. "...succeeded by his son Yosef, whose abuse of power resulted in an uprising in 1066, the first slaughter of Jews in peninsular history. In that revolt Yosef, his family and close collaborators perished. However, this was not an anti-Jewish uprising by the Moors in Grenada but rather a reaction against a specific family."
Another source, the unfortunately acceptable Norman Stillman in his 1979 Jews of Arab lands calls Ishaq's poem "rabble-rousing", and can be cited for the "crucifixion" bit - though he says "city gates", rather than palace doors like everyone else. He also adds that it wasn't until the following morning that the mob went on the rampage through the Jewish Quarter, "razing it to the ground". (This is why I am puzzled by Stillman's success: he is full of phrases like that and one never knows if he means it literally or not, as well as the lackadaisical approach to where the crucifixion took place.)
The most interesting part of this whole enterprise, as several sources make clear, is that the memorialisation of this incident comes entirely from Muslim historiography. The occasions when Jewish sources discuss it are, according to this analysis, restrained in comparison to the manner in which Ashkenazim recorded pogroms elsewhere in Europe, or, indeed, how Muslim memories of it sound. The memoirs of the last Berber king of Granada, revisit it at length, though he avoids any mention of the poem or any religious criticism of the position of the Jewish community.
Of course, this has changed recently: Yeor, Spencer, and their ahistorical ilk refer to it repeatedly. According to Mark Cohen of Princeton "A favorite episode in what I call the “neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history” took place in 1066. A Jewish vizier was assassinated in the Berber kingdom of Granada, Spain, and afterwards the entire Jewish community was wiped out by the Muslim mob. A virulent anti-Jewish Arabic poem encouraged the persecution, and it is often cited as a piece of medieval Muslim antisemitism. A Jewish writer two centuries later called attention to the sad event, but implied that the Jewish vizier, by his haughty behavior towards Muslims, had brought it on himself. Moreover, two elegies on the death of this vizier by a contemporary Hebrew poet lack the faintest allusion to the fact that he was the victim of anti-Jewish political assassination and to the pogrom that followed." Tragically, its a working paper he doesn't want quoted without permission, though I suppose someone could write to him and ask. Especially when he means "often cited" he presumably means by "some circles" he accuses of revisionism and pushing the "neo-lachrymose conception" for "political considerations". Whatever. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that dhimma and not, say dīn, was the button pushed by Abu Ishaq. Lewis could have saved us a lot of trouble had he gazed into the future to learn about WP's RS requirements. :-) rudra (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Rot. You need to find something that is an impeccably reliable source and stresses the religious aspect as well as the anti-Jewish aspect, and implies the two are linked. Difficult, because I've just demonstrated why its probably ahistorical to think so by linking to someone who specifically studies it saying so. Frankly the category needs to be deleted as a waste of bloody time, and misleading as described, if it can be attached to something which is neither generally considered to be antisemitic the way the term is understood today nor linked by scholars directly to "Islam" in the sense of rule-based religious motivation. What a load of politically motivated crap we let these articles descend into. Whatever, I'm off to whatever corner of wiki-land the Spencers and ISCKONites and Frawleys and Yeors and Ukrainian Echos have not yet despoiled. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahistorical? Whatever... rudra (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You disagree? Go yell at Mark R. Cohen, not me. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting very very silly. This article is relevant to the category Islam and antisemitism, because it is about an event that has been cited as antisemitic and in which a Muslim mob killed a lot of Jews. Some editors here seem to think that one has to prove that the religion of Islam actually caused the massacre. Rot, to repeat a favoured word. It simply has to be relevant to the subject of the category. No one is trying to add it to an article called Events in History Which Prove that the Islamic Faith Has Been Responsible for Modern Antisemitism. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Read the damn discussion first. Scholars of antisemitism say that it would be a misunderstanding viewed as "antisemitism" as we understand it or by the medieval conception of such. What the hell is does "relevant to the subject of the category" even mean? We consider every article that mentions "Muslims" and every article that mentions "Jews" - or at least every one that is about Jews suffering relevant? That's ridiculous, but would make sense as a politcally relevant cateogroy. What a pity we aren't supposed to be a platform for those re-interpreting history for political considerations. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, I did read it. Don't maske unwarranted assumptions. Your 'damn' offensiveness is increasing. Scholars of antisemitism say differing things, as well you know. Are you even aware of the point of categories? They are to help people to find articles that are relevant. The relevance has already been explained ad nauseaum. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And if there isn't a majority opinion that the articles are indeed relevant? What then? That's precisely the point I made. And if you can find a few mainstream scholars of Jewish history in the Arab world that disagree with Mark Cohen, you might have a point. As it stands, you've just made an assertion without any backing; I made the assumption that you hadn't read it out of the best of faith, as otherwise it would have implied the considerably more offensive implication that you chose to ignore or misunderstand it. You can hardly say that scholars say differing things when, as Itsmejudith says, nothing has been presented on the "other" side. I find it most disappointing that transparent political reimaginings - when actually described by a reliable source as transparent political reimaginings! - are nevertheless being repeated on-WP in WP's voice through categories. This isn't appropriate. See WP:CATEGORIES#Guidelines, #7. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Article is already in sufficient categories for anyone to find it easily. Since categorisation does not usually require sourcing in the same way that edits to mainspace do, it can too easily become a focus for POV-pushing that wastes everyone's time. Best to draw a line under this now. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher, Moorish Spain, p.96-97: "In 1066 the Granadan faqih Abu Ishaq mobilised Muslim opinion against the Jewish community there, and against Joseph in particular, on the grounds that Jews were ruling over Muslims contrary to Islamic teaching. He disseminated his views by means of an able but nasty anti-Semitic poem, addressed to Badis, inciting the inhabitants of Granada to turn on the Jews [...] Abu Ishaq was all too successful in his aim. A pogrom occurred in the course of which Joseph and large numbers of the Granadan Jews were put to the sword." He goes on to say: "This was an isolated outbreak. By and large the eleventh century was a time of peace and prosperity for Spanish Jewry." (Things got appreciably worse with the Almoravids and Almohads later.) rudra (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Jews were ruling over Muslims contrary to Islamic teaching" This is most probably true, since classical Islam said that non-Muslims (including Jews) were to not rule over Muslims, and be subject to some discrimination (jizya (though Muslim had to pay zakat) etc.) And this is the limit to which Abu Ishaq's actions are "Islamic".
What classical Islam didn't say is that non-Muslim civilians had to be killed. Medieval jurists agreed that non-Muslims could live (and keep their religion) as dhimmis.Bless sins (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a strange way to put it. The notion of "had to be killed" applies only to hadd penalties. Elsewhere, Islamic law doesn't talk about "having" to kill people: it talks about killing that is not subject to retaliation (with or without weregeld also). Viewing dhimma as a covenant, its breach by dhimmis was one of those situations. It is an Islamic conception that some kinds of people can be killed with impunity. The context matters, but not in the way Western conceptions would suppose. rudra (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Killing with impunity is usually restricted to war and even then, only against adult men. Women and children are always spared. Would you not agree? Also, what was the "breach of dhimma"? An example case, where a dhimmi doesn't pay jizya, is to be punished by imprisonment (indefinite by the harshest versions, but nevertheless imprisonment, not killing).Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for soapboxing, not like any of this is relevant. Yahel Guhan 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Killing is not relevant?
In any case, the discussion should always include sources.Bless sins (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Racial massacres[edit]

I believe the negative-racist speaker is a bearing-of-false-witness addict, so man-childed, that it embarrasses itself....[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maredecanis (talkcontribs) 23:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I also removed, "Racial massacres" since I highly doubt the motivation was race. Had the Jews converted to Islam, but remaining the same "race", they probably wouldn't have been killed.Bless sins 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jews are often refered to as a race as well as a religous group (see racial antisemitism). Yahel Guhan 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Race was probably not a motivation, unless you can substantiate that claim.Bless sins 03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The sources make it clear that they are killing jews; race or religion based, it doesn't really matter. It could easily be interprited either way. Yahel Guhan 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The sources need to make it clear that they are killing people (doesn't matter whom) on the basis of race. "It could easily be interprited either way" By wikipedians, yes. By scholars? You have yet to provide evidence.Bless sins 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Moot point. Race as you understand it was not "invented" until the 19th century which is also when, surprise, racial antisemitism rears its head. By including "Race" you are superimposing modern ideas and values on a people who have no conception of them. In fact, what you consider race wasn't so clear cut even up until the Second World War as race was sometimes coterminous with ethnicity: American race, English race, Russian race, Jewish race, etc. Using race in this article for an event in the 11th century is at the very least a basic conceptual error and at the most blatant Historical Revisionism.BinaryLust (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"2"[edit]

BS, you said respond on talk. To what? What is your problem with this inclusion that should be obvious. Yahel Guhan 20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Respond to my last statement on 04:03, 13 November 2007: "The sources need to make it clear that they are...".  — [Unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talkcontribs).]
That was about the racial massacures category, not the islam and antisemitism one, which isn't in the article at current. Yahel Guhan 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
How does you above statement respond to my concerns in anyway? I have separated the discussion so you can clearly see my response.Bless sins (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Anti-semitism are rare in Islamic World before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, They were respected as one of the people of the book. This massacre is not religious. It's racial. In Ialamic Spain, Both the jews and the arabs society are more dynamic then the Berber whcih form the majority of the muslim in Spain. most of the Arabs and Jews are capable merchants and artists and soon their wealth and achievement overshadowed the majority berber. There are several racial conflict between the Berber and the Arabs, but none were recorded properly in history, as the history Jews was. We see the same thing happen today in many country against the Minority group who were perceived by the majority as a threat to them. Just look at the discrimination suffered by the ethnic Chinese in several non-Chinese majority country in East Asia.161.142.139.54 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed at List of events named massacre[edit]

The Granada Massacre is the second event listed at the above list article (formerly entitled "List of massacres"). The list has recently undergone a change of name and inclusion criteria to make it less of a POV edit war magnet (this was the result mandated by a recent AfD nomination). The new version of the list requires multiple sources that substantiate that the word "massacre" is part of an accepted name for the event - as evidenced by reliable sources. Unfortunately the entry on the Granada Massacre does not include sources that do that (the one's provided do indicate that it was a massacre, but do not substanitate it as a name). Ideally we would like reliable sources that say something along the lines of "...known as the Granada Massacre". I am sure that the regular editors to this page will know which sources will meet with the list's new requirements. Please help us out. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll try to see what I can find. Having worked on the above mentioned page, I've got to say you guys seem to have gotten quite picky (which is probably a good thing given the problems previously before).Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Very picky (it was either this or deletion)... thanks for helping us out. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical Evidence for this Event is Dubious an Questionable![edit]

Well from looking at the references i can see the lack of objective historical sources in order to account for this event . and definitely not enough to make such a false preposterous accusation of genocide.

If we would look at the first source , The jewish encyclopedia which is probably the most biased source of information you could ever bother with , at least when it comes to the displaying jews as victims ...etc we can safely drop this one as unreliable.

secondly , comes the reprehensible Mr Lewis , and i'm calling him reprehensible because his studies are nothing but lies and propagandas. Read what Edward W. Said has written about him ! besides what would you expect from a person whom the greatest insensible moron of all times Mr.George W. Bush used to call upon for Advice??

At Last , you have the insignificant Walter Zeev Laqueur who besides his weak neglible status is of jewish ancestry, making him another case of the famous zionist false accusation situation in the pathetic fashion of the boy who cried muslim.

I Challange everybody to present me with objective verified sources to prove this alleged massacre to be a positive event.


otherwise this article must scheduled for deletion.

NOTE : Did somebody besides me notice the extremely low results count on google for the keywods "1066 Granada massacre" ??? Try to google "armenian genocide" for example and you get a million results DOes that Ring any Bells ????

RegardsCowmadness (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You sound pretty biased yourself. Someone being Jewish isn't adequate, unbiased reason to discount a source, and at the very least demonstrates your poor lack of judgment. Results counts on Google aren't relevant regarding whether or not to include something in Wikipedia. And there are almost 9000 hits, in any case, which is hardly insignificant.QuizzicalBee (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
OK , since you're referring to what you call "my lack of judgment" , please let me give you an example to display who is lacking judgement.

Let's say , you're from tribe A and I'm from Tribe B , now you accuse me of slapping you in the face. Question would be: Does your account of me slapping you suffice for considering your claim to be true? The Logical Answer : NO it Does not ! You See it's that simple , so if a jewish source claims that muslims had wiped out a jewish community in granada in the year xxxx , then this can Not be considered historically valid by itself.

RegardsCowmadness (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, making edits such as this one implies a distinct POV, and User:Cowmadness's statements need be be seen in light thereof. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Bernard Lewis[edit]

Bernard Lewis is notorious for his attempts to soft-pedal the history of endemic massacres and mob violence in Islamic history. Bernard Lewis is also one of the foremost figures among historians that denies the 1915 Armenian Genocide, and Wikipedia is singularly guilty of over-sourcing his quotes.
The 1066 Granada massacre was the first massacre/expulsion of Jews in medieval Spain, and Bernard Lewis' attempts to downplay it or protray it as a one-off for the Islamic world are despicable. Fortunately, we have the writings of Moses Maimonides as a testimony to the truth. Wikipedia is severely biased, but it cannot hide the facts of history for posterity.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Your view is noted and I would argue, supportable. So if that is the case, what do you actually attempt to do about it? This article is about the Granada massacre, not about what one can view as Lewis' quasi-apologetics. Quote another source on the subject if you have on readily available.ShamWow (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider omitting part of the article for biased and non-independent source used.[edit]

I would suggest to omit the below mentioned part of the article because the Lewis is himself of jewish ancestory and thus cannot be considered as an independent source. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

--Particularly instructive in this respect is an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066. This poem, which is said to be instrumental in provoking the anti-Jewish outbreak of that year, contains these specific lines: Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on. They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators? How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent? Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right![5] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fitzgerald (talkcontribs) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Joseph ibn Naghrela for some problems. PatGallacher (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Two closely linked articles, not particularly lengthy, with a large overlap between them, could easily be merged. PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked them out, and think that they could be merged under 1066 Granada Massacre. I don't think the other article is strong enough to stand independently. It's kind of vague. It would be better if put under this heading, as it will contextualize him better. QuizzicalBee (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
has been merged--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Biog Banner Removed[edit]

This article is about an incident. It is not a biography. If Joseph ibn Naghrela were to be merged into this article, the name of the article would still refer to an incident in history not a biography. JimCubb (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While this article has large chunks of information about Joseph ibn Naghrela, he has his own article. Battle of the Bulge, Warsaw Uprising, Masada and Wounded Knee Massacre all have information about persons. All may be of interest biographically. None are biographies. JimCubb (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears as though the aforementioned merger has happened. The article, while informative, is uneven & confusing & does not fit with Wikipedia's normal entry style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piantanida31 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figures[edit]

Casualty figures in relation to massacres are often a particularly dificult issue, I could point to several articles on Wikipedia where this has been a problem, but some of the higher figures claimed would be treated with caution by some people. However I note that figures claimed in 1906 have not been repeated by more recent sources, and that Joseph's wife and son did manage to escape the massacre. PatGallacher (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

BulbBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph ibn Naghrela was (killed/assassinated/murdered/crucified/other) ?[edit]

I am of the opinion that crucified in the lead, is the most informative and neutral term, it's a fact, in the same way that killed is a purely neutral term - however crucified is more informative. Murdered? are we dealing with a legal definition? Assassinated? surely that has political connotations, and without sources using that term, smacks of OR.

NPOV + informative = crucified.

What do others think? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • There is nothing POVish about "crucified" and based on this user talk it seems you already have an agreement about the earlier revert. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think crucified is better than assassinated for the reasons Space listed—it is factual and descriptive. -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Crucified would be my choice. It's been changed, so all is good. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ KJB