Talk:Bat Ye'or/Archive 2

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

Short version

I have rewritten the article in line with the recent abbreviated revision of the equally hotly contested article on Robert Spencer. Let's stick to biography here and move the discussion of her writings to the pages dedicated to her books. It worked for rebert Spencer, why shouldn't it work here? Other articles on historians of Islam look pretty much the same without causing much controversy, see Bernard Lewis, for example.--Pecher 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach . An encyclopdia is meant to be informative , and an author's page should provide a comprehensive overview of the authors work not just a skeleton of their life. What you are doing is slicing off anything that would be contentious , supposedly moving it to other pages, which is simply moving it out of sight where the wikipedia reader is not very likely to get to, so in essence the result is a loss of information in the wikidia experience. If you goal is no controversy then just erase all the wikipedia pages and you will achieve that--CltFn 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I approve of "Just the facts, Ma'am" approaches because there are the only demonstrated method that results in a high ratio of facts to smothering Wiki editor POV. Bloating entries seldom provide a "comprehensive overview of X's work;" rather, they provide a battlefield for POV turf-war with umpitty people hair-splitting over what's "comprehensive" and what's not. (I.e., Wiki editor "Bob" has an opinion, so he dashes to Google for a slam piece from the New York Times, and gives in prominance; then "Jay", of contrary opinion, wants to give The Wall Street Journal equal time; then "Mitch" cites Drudge...whereup everyone goes apeshit over "credibility" since Drudge Report is a website as opposed to the "credible" NYT, where a reporter is seemingly fired every week for lying and/or plagerism. And around and around and around it goes.)
The short version works well for Spencer, since his main "projects" are a blog (where anyone can spleen away) and writing books (where anyone can spleen away in an review). Given the ready availability of just about anything on the net, "exhaustive" articles are neither necessary nor advisable; giving the reader fast tips to further his own research in a rapidly-changing datascape should be, I think, a more paramount mission.--Mike18xx 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Dhummy, I'm actually pretty lenient -- if you can dredge up something claiming Bat Ye'or is the love-slave of over-sexed space-aliens ("with shocking photographs!") and wanna connect it in External Links, I couldn't care less (although others might zot it). But one-sentence throw-aways in the main body of the article, essentially boiling down to "This person sucks, according to this press blowhard!", followed by "And another ink-strained wretch says 'Does not!'", just get in the way of the more primary information (bibliography, etc). Virtually all of this criticism is self-evident anyway (e.g., Bat Ye'or is a Jew critical of many aspects of Islam--tough guess who doesn't like her).

There's plenty of room at the BOTTOM of the entry for all the hair-pulling.--Mike18xx 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Short version

I think it's about strange to have an article about somebody known only for their writings which does not discuss how those writings are regarded. As it stands, this page would give a reader the impression that Bat Ye'or's status as a reputable historian was not a matter of considerable doubt (to put it mildly). The controversy over her opinions needs to be reflected here; otherwise it is a severe distortion (and yes, it is possible to distort by ommission). I will put a POV tag on the page until we reach agreement on this. Palmiro | Talk 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to include criticism of Bar Ye'or works, do so. Please note, however, that criticism must be substantiated and must not be confined to ad hominem attacks.--Pecher 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"I think it's about strange to have an article about somebody known only for their writings which does not discuss how those writings are regarded." -- Perhaps an equal-length endorsement by Spencer or Pipes or Fallaci alongside each criticism would be appropriate. Of course then it would just "cancel out" the section. And there would also be incessent wrangling over which sources each editor preferred for inclusion (as cover for their own POV).--Mike18xx 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"criticism must be substantiated and must not be confined to ad hominem attacks." -- The other reason I chucked that particular paragraph is because it led off with "Some historians..." when no historians were cited.--Mike18xx 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Any time anyone tries to include criticism one or the other of Pecher and Mike18xx gets rid of it. Nothing indicates that Pecher is gpoing to actually engage in dialogue with other editors here, so rather than edit-war over the inclusion of criticism I will leave an NPOV tag on the page. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So you get a tasate of your own medicine. This is EXACTLY how some editors are treated when trying to participate in Nakba Zeq 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems rather bizarre to me to place a NPOV tag due to the fact that the POV one wishes were there is not being accepted. Pecher has been beyond reasonable in attempting to get ANY of you to dispute any particular assertion contained in Ye'or's work cited elsewhere (e.g., Dhimmi); and the very best I've seen so far is sputtering ad-hominem. While Wikipedia is indeed the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's greatly preferred that the editors actually be familiar with the subjects they are editing. -- Having a cloudy perception that someone is a "right-wing extremist" doesn't really cut it (especially when that someone's major adversaries include, among others, Islamists who make up their own swastika flags, give the "fascist salute" at their rallies [if you think I'm making that up, I'll be happy to direct you to a choice selection of photographic evidence], and are making translated renditions of "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" best-sellers).--Mike18xx 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I made it rather plain that I expect criticism to be substantiated and directed at the works, not the person. Nothing of this kind has emerged so far.PecherTalk 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Ye'0r's work

For inclusion when this page is unprotected:

Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies writes of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work." [1]--Lee Hunter 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Such weasel-worded criticism does not merit inclusion in any Wikipedia article. Pecher Talk 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
ROTFL. If it was good enough for a prestigious scholarly journal, it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still weasel-worded, isn't it? BTW, can you complete the sentence after the word "work"? Pecher Talk 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"Weasel-worded"?? What exactly do see as being weaselly? It's an utterly straight-forward critique. He says that 1) her interpretations of the terms "jihad" and "dhimmitude" are weak, 2) her historical method is lacking and 3) her work has a polemical tone. You can't get much more direct and pointed than that. --Lee Hunter 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Only the third point sounds more or or less lucid to me; however, examples are necessary to illustrate it. The first two, however, are vague. How exactly are her interpretations weak? What do you mean "her historical method is lacking"? Is there some kind of historical method that is specific to her? My understanding of criticism is: "Bat Ye'or says, quoting from a Syriac chronicle, that in the Abbasid Caliphate Muslims paid taxes to non-Muslims. However, the chronicle that she relies on had been proved to be a forgery by Julius Wellhausen 100 years before Bat Ye'or wrote her works." That's specific, substantiated crticism. On the other hand, "theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude" sounds smart and scholarly, but is in fact general amd unsubstantiated.Pecher Talk 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well then I suppose you'll have to go argue with Mr. Griffith and the editors of the International Journal of Middle East Studies. --Lee Hunter 12:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository of opinions of various people about each other. Arguments must be confined to the articles on specific subjects, not biographies. Otherwise, biographies of most famous people, especially politicians, would swell beyond any reasonable proportions. It can be argued that your quote may be put in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, but not in the biography in any case. In addition, please note that in the process of reverting you have replaced the current consensual version of the article with a very old version to which some sockpuppet reverted the article just before your edits. Pecher Talk 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact the articles about controversial persons ALWAYS contain information about the controversy (i.e. criticism). Removing criticism is simple censorship and is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Your dichotomy between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" persons strikes me as odd and POV. Pecher Talk 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Dichotomy? What dichotomy? Read the articles for nearly any controversial person (e.g. Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan) and you'll find plenty of criticism. Noam Chomsky has an entire lengthy article with nothing but criticism. What's so special about Bat Ye'or that we shouldn't include sourced criticism from established academics published in respected scholarly journals? Or from the New York Times for that matter. --Lee Hunter 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What dichotomy? Your dichotomy. How do you distinguish between a "controversial" and an "uncontroversial" person? Probably every single notable person has admirers and detractors. Should we include all praise and criticism into the article then? If we do, we may indeed get a monstrosity like Criticism of Noam Chomsky as a result. Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes. If there is some bad practice in Wikipedia, then it does not follow that such practice must be perpetuated and expanded. Pecher Talk 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh? You write "How do you distinguish between a "controversial" and an "uncontroversial" person?" How about applying this simple test: "Do people express criticism about this person in notable publications?" Yes? The person is controversial. No? The person is non-controversial (but may be otherwise notable). You also write "Should we include all praise and criticism into the article then?" No, its not necessary to include ALL praise or criticism but a representative sample would be nice. The reader should, at the very least, be informed that the criticism exists! Your suggestion that including criticism is a "bad practise" is staggering. To be honest, it is quite ludicrous. I've never heard such a bizaare idea in the years I've been editing WP. --Lee Hunter 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a notable person of whom criticism is not expressed in "notable publications"? And how do you define that a "sample" is representative? Let me give you a quote that, I think, says it all:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
Pecher Talk 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You need to spend more time reading articles in WP. You'll find that adding critical commentary to an article is entirely normal, proper and expected. Saddam Hussein is a poor example. Since he was an actor on the world stage, we can, indeed, simply let his actions speak for themselves. But Bat Ye'or, Noam Chomsky et al are academics and thinkers and their research and viewpoints cannot be evaluated by the average reader who has no background in linguistics, Middle East history etc. That is why we can't just summarize their ideas without including the commentaries of others. Bat Ye'or is notable for her ideas. This is a fact. Her ideas are accepted by some and rejected by others. This is another fact. I would suggest that if anyone is doing original research, it is you, because you are arbitararily deciding that we should publish the first fact, but hide the second. Wikipedia is a compendium of verifiable and notable information. Whether it makes someone look good or bad is pretty much irrelevant. Regarding your question of what is "representative", that is a question which is decided on a case-by-case basis by the editors of an article and is subject to change as new editors come along. One thing I can tell you for sure, is that trying to "cleanse" an article of all criticism is unacceptable and goes against everything this encyclopedia stands for. --Lee Hunter 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You're essentially saying: "Don't read the policy, read the articles." I doubt that it is an effective approach in improving NPOV standards in Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Where in the policies does it say that we should not include criticism? --Lee Hunter 02:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

articles in the IJMES and Le Point

. . . the former by a professor whose impeccable credentials on the topic may be viewed here, the latter by a well-known and likewise well-credentialed French scholar of Islam, are (take your pick) "non notable source[s] of criticism" or "apologist nonsense". Welcome to Bizarro Wikipedia. —Charles P._(Mirv) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that attempted injection of sanity, though I fear it will be of little avail. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Re the Chebel Malek citation: unfortunately his remarks are not accurate. After the rise of Zionism Jews in a number of Arab lands became the object of various abuses, including a small number of events which while not pogroms in the strict sense were certainly murderous sectarian riots. Obviously none of this was inspired by Islam or had anything to do with the dhimma, but was a response to contemporary political and, in the case of Palestine, economic developments, and he doubtless means to refer to periods of Islamic rule proprement dit; but it does mean that his remarks will make a lot of reasonably well-informed people go "what's he talking about? what about the Farhud (etc)?" So I would suggest removing his remarks, germane and all as they are. Palmiro | Talk 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: I see that the material has just been removed. Well, it certainly isn't patent nonsense, but for the reasons given above I think it is better to leave it out. Palmiro | Talk 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I've restored his comments. He's referring to pre-modern history. --Lee Hunter 18:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously that must logically be the case, but the fact that he doesn't say so makes it a bit jarring, or possibly very jarring, depending on where you're coming from. Palmiro | Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Pre-modern history? What about the slaughter and expulsion of Jews of Medina by Mohammad himself and the subsequent murder of many expelled survivors in Khaybar? What about the later expulsion of Jews from Hijaz by Umar I? What about massacres of Jews by Almohads, including the Cordoba massacre from which Maimonides spared his life only through conversion to Islam, the conversion which was later ruled void only thanks to his powerful friends? Just open Bernard Lewis to find out that Chebel is simply lying because Lewis never "established" anything Chebel ascribes to him. The reference to the Jewishness of the authors Chebel cites is particularly disgusting, as if an opinion of a Jewish author on matters of Jewish history carries more weight than opinions of non-Jewish scholars. Pecher Talk 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


For information, I've requested unprotection, as I can't see that there was any vandalism, and I'm not sure that semi-protection is really the way to deal with edit wars of this sort. Palmiro | Talk 17:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with content. User:Wik is a permanently banned user, and he must come to realize that his sockpuppeting will not be tolerated. Semi-protection, and blocking his sockpuppets, are going to be a continual nuisance for him until he re-considers his actions. If he wants to go away and edit non-controversially somewhere else, then no-one will notice. Until then, semi-protection needs to stay. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Pecher, please stop removing the Benbassa segment. The article is quite authentic. Ye'or herself launched a lawsuit over it. [2] --Lee Hunter 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for that article, see WP:RS. Pecher Talk 13:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The source is Le Point [3][4]--Lee Hunter 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that Bat Ye'or won the right to respond on the pages of Le Point and EUR 2,000 in one-time damages. Pecher Talk 13:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't forget. I just didn't want to deny you the pleasure of putting it in. :) .--Lee Hunter 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It gives me little pleasure to push the article further down the "he said-she said-he sued-she appealed" slope. Biographies are meant to document the key information on a person's life and to dexcribe why the person is notable, not to meticulously quote what different people said about that person. Pecher Talk 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
She is notable in part because of the controversy stirred by her books. Noting the reaction from her peers is all part of a good article. Glossing over criticism would do the reader a disservice. --Lee Hunter 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
She is notable for the books she has written. There is not much of a controversy, as you can see, since the article has barely scraped together a couple of critical quotes. Pecher Talk 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There's not much of a controversy in scientific circles about the flat earth theory, either. That still doesn;t make it right. Palmiro | Talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Please stop removing factual, sourced information from this article. Criticism of Bat Ye'or in notable publications is entirely relevant. Your claim that it they are "ad hominem attacks" is entirely specious. The fact that she has been described as being right wing is not, in any way, an ad hominem attack (unless perhaps, you think there's something shameful about being a conservative) --Lee Hunter 16:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When I see all the media criticism directed against Bernard Lewis or other historian dumped into the article, I may take the censorship argument more seriously. Wikipedia is not a place to record everything that people spleen on each other. Pecher Talk 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that if I add some media criticism added to the Lewis article you'll accept that the criticism of Ye'or belongs here? --Lee Hunter 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you do that, it will be a violation of WP:POINT. There are tons of media opinions for any notable person, but it does not mean that all journalistic ramblings belong to the encyclopedia. What you want to restore are simply personal views of two individuals, who on top of that do not appear to be notable themselves. Essentially, it is a cunning way of disrupting an article by stuffing it with sourced material that does not supply any new information to the reader. Pecher Talk 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've already shown you numerous examples of articles that do contain criticism of individuals. You can find some that don't. What does that prove? The two quotes you object to are not even so much criticism as they are correctly pointing out that Ye'or is a favorite of the right wing. This is interesting, factual and relevant information. At least to some people. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe it embarrasses you. I don't know why you have such a problem with it. But it does belong in the article. --Lee Hunter 13:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That these quotes "correctly point out" to something is just your opinion or rather the opinion that you share with two other persons. Wikipedia, however, is not a soapbox for newspaper reporters and their fans. Pecher Talk 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times is one of the most widely-quoted sources in this encyclopedia. Calling it a soapbox is ridiculous. --Lee Hunter 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It is actually Wikipedia, not NYT, that is not a soapbox. Pecher Talk 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
WP is not a soapbox for its editors. Which means that we don't add our personal opinions and we don't exercise our personal preferences about what we would or would not like to see in an article. In other words, if a notable publication publishes commentary about the subject, it can be added to the article. The fact that a person has drawn the attention of a publication like the New York Times is such basic fodder for a WP article that I'm astonished that you would think otherwise. --Lee Hunter 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested unprotection

I've requested unprotection on this article. Reviraz was restoring perfectly relevant and sourced information which was being censored. If the page is to be protected, it should be protected WITH the censored information, not without. --Lee Hunter 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles are always protected in the wrong version. Pecher Talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category addition?

I just thought "islam and cotroversy" might be an appropriate category.DanielDemaret 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. --Lee Hunter 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Loss of nationality

What is the basis for the first line: "but her Egyptian nationality was revoked in 1955 because she was Jewish"? Was it really official Egyptian policy to strip all Egyptian jews from the Egyptian nationality? Hard to believe, so please provide evidence or reword this statement.

Here's a source, an article based on an interview with her. [5] SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[6] worth a look. --Coroebus 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Review of 'The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, From Jihad to Dhimmitude': "As a consequence of its inflexible assumption that an unfir law must always be applied unfairly, itfails to recognise the different conditions under which dhimmis lived at different times and places. The author is guilty of the same doctrinaire attitude of which she accuses so many of her subjects." David Thomas, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Birmingham.


Why is the first quote about her not being controversial? Shouldn't it either not be there, be in the rest of the text, or be after the criticism? --Coroebus 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

historian ?

Why Bat Ye'or is a historian, while Karen Armstrong is not even considered as an scholar (just a writer) ? Why is not Bat Ye'or just a writer? --Aminz 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am kind of bewildered as to how Wikipedia doles out "historian" honors. To me, "historian" means several of the following are true about a person: he has a doctorate in history; he teaches history at a reputable school; he has published articles in peer-reviewed, respected journals of history; he has written a history book that is used in history courses at several reputable schools; his writings are cited by other people who are considered historians. I'm not sure if Bat Ye'or meets a single one of these criteria; I'm going to change her to being a "writer" unless her resume can be beefed up a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
Bat Ye'or is a historian because she writes about the the history of non-muslims in the Middle East and under Islam. Had you read any of her books you would have seen that they are historical texts , which provide one of the greatest repository of primary sources on the topic .Its also odd that you insist on credentials when you yourself do not even bother to get a wikipedia account.Might you be a banned user that is evading the block?--CltFn 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I deleted reference to her real name from the article on grounds that this is a bio of a living person and the presumption of privacy. I think we should also delete the redirect page to here from her real name and delete all references to this from this talk page also per WP:BLP; she is arguably a non-public figure as per the definition in that policy. Crust 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see a new user (Ali Quant) has already reverted this. According to WP:BLP, we are supposed to protect even her (exact) birthday. She publishes pseudonymously so obviously she wants to remain anonymous; it's not hard to understand why. Her real name is not related to her notability (which would give an argument as to why it might be important to include her real name). I realize there is some publicly available reference to her real name, but she is usually referred to by her pseudonym. If you do a google search by her real name, this article is the top hit. To quote from the guildeline (emphasis added):

Crust 20:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could possibly be argued that she is not a public figure. According to the article "Bat Ye'or has authored 8 books. She provided briefings to the US congress and has given talks at major universities such as Georgetown, Brown, Yale, Brandeis and Columbia universities." She's even appeared in a documentary video and there's a picture of her in the article speaking on CSPAN. If that's not public, what is? --Lee Hunter 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy of citing Johann Hari as a source.

Somebody keeps deleting Johann Hari's criticisms on the grounds he is not "a scholar of Islam". You do not have to be a scholar of Islam to be posted on wiki; you have to be a notable source. Hari has written for the New York Times and been shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. His criticisms are totally legitimate to be posted here, and Ye'or's fans shoudl stop deleting them just ebcause they are critical.

Both Spencer and Johann Hari are not specialized in the field of Bat Ye'or. Albert Einstein is notable in matters related to physics but he is not a qualified source for his views on history. Similarly, Johann Hari is NOT a reliable source for criticism of Bat Ye’or. Why don't you google it and find a published reliable source on Bat Ye'or? --Reza1 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Spencer is amply qualified on the topic Bat Yeor since his has published numerous books that quote her extensively.--CltFn 06:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Spencer is no scholar of Islam. He doesn't hold any academic position. --Reza1 06:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
That is your personal POV . He is a published authors , his books are widely read and quoted and are supported by extensive primary sources.Furthermore he has a Masters degree in religion.--CltFn 06:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "qualified in the field of Bat Ye'or" mean? They are distinguished writers epxressing a clear, properly sourced and researched opinion. Albert Einstein's views on both religion and nuclear weapons (neither of which are his specialism) can be found on wiki entries. You are plainly removing the references because they are critical. This constitutes vandalism - can the Wiki authorities please adjudicate on this question?

I think it's quite revealing that the vandals who were deleting passages form this page have chosen not to engage in discussion about it here, but have simply slinked away.

Robert Spencer as a notable source

Spencer is amply qualified on the topic Bat Yeor since his has published numerous books that quote her extensively The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.--CltFn 06:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Carl Ernest& Khaleel Muhammad say he is no scholar of Islam. --Reza1 18:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Bernard Lewis statement

The current statement "Bernard Lewis, in his book The Jews of Islam states that Bat Ye'or emphasizes the negative aspects of the Muslim record." is taken out of context and is a misrepresentation of what is actually presented in the book. (which I have by the way)

Here is what is actually in the book ,in the Chapter 1 NOTES sections: ( I have bolded the sentence in question )


THE FOLLOWING abbreviations have been used in the notes:

ONE. ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS 1 The position of the non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim state has been studied by A. S. Tritton, The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects: A Critical Study of the Covenant of 'Umar (London, 1930; reprinted 1970), and by Antoine Pattai, Le Statut legal des nonmusulmans en pays d'Islam (Beirut, 1958). The literature on the different non-Muslim communities is uneven. Scholarly work on the Christians tends to be concerned with the history of Christianity and of the churches rather than with the actual life of the Christian communities. There is a quite extensive literature in Arabic. General works in Western languages include A. S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity (London, 1968), and B. Spuler, Die Morgenländischen Kirchen, in Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden, 1964). On the history and historiography of the Jews in Islamic lands, there are two excellent recent publications: Norman A. Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book (Philadelphia, 1979), and Mark R. Cohen, 'The Jews under Islam: from the Rise of Islam to Sabbatai Zevi,” in Bibliographical Essays in Medieval Jewish Studies (New York, 1976), pp. 169-1219, reprinted with a supplement as Princeton Near East Paper Number 32, Princeton, 1981. On the writings of S. D. Goitein, by far the most important body of scholarly work on Judaeo-Arab history, see chapter 2, note 1 below, and passim. The history of both Jews and Christians under Muslim rule is discussed in A. J. Arberry, ed., Religion in the Middle East (Cambridge, 1969), where bibliographies are also given. For a selection of documents in translation, see B. Lewis, Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople, II (New York, 1974), pp. 217-235. On Islamic tolerance in general, see Rudi Paret, “Toleranz und Intoleranz im Islam,” Saeculum 21 (1970): 344-365; Francesco Gabrieli, “La Tolleranza nell'Isiam,” La Cultura 10 (1971): 257-266, reprinted in idem, Arabeschi e Studi Islamici (Naples, 1973), pp. 25-36; Adel Khoury, Toleranz im Islam (Munich, 1980). Two other works, which emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record, are Bat Ye'or (pseudonym), Le Dhimmi: Profil de l'oprimé en Orient et en Afrique du nord depuis la conquête arabe (Paris, 1980), and Karl Binswanger, Untersuchungen zum Status der Nichtmuslime im osmanischen Reich des 16. Jahrhundert, mit einer Neudefinition des Begriffes “Dhimma” (Munich, 1977). The latter is very critical of what he calls the “dogmatic Islamophilia” of many orientalists.

As you can see this is a far cry from the spin that is currently in the article.user:Reza1 take note

Thus a more accurate presenting of what Bernard Lewis says would be something like this:

  • Bernard Lewis, in his book The Jews of Islam cites that Bat Ye'or's book "Le Dhimmi: Profil de l'oprimé en Orient et en Afrique du nord depuis la conquête arabe (Paris, 1980) noting that it is emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record.

--CltFn 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Lewis mentions her book. Lewis never cites her as a reference. --Reza1 18:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem out of context to me. BhaiSaab talk 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It does not seem out of context to you? Well it is , and that would be self-evident to anyone who understands English.--CltFn 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand English perfectly well. Thanks. Reza said Bernard Lewis emphasizes the negatives - that's exactly what Bernard Lewis said about her work. BhaiSaab talk 00:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Demonstrably you don't , you seem unable to comprehend the points that I presented above. --CltFn 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just that the points aren't very good. BhaiSaab talk 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you get a english dictionary and find out what the word "works" means , then ask yourself what could it be referring to. But you will not understand what Bernard Lewis is saying until you find out the meaning of the words he is using in that sentence.--CltFn 04:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No thanks. BhaiSaab talk 05:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The current statement alleges that Lewis refers to Bat Ye'or, while he actually refers to one of her books, which he specifies. However, he doesn't cite the book, he mentions it and gives a qualifier. Here goes:

  • Bernard Lewis, in his book "The Jews of Islam" notes that Bat Ye'or's book "Le Dhimmi: Profil de l'oprimé en Orient et en Afrique du nord depuis la conquête arabe" emphasizes the negative aspects of the Muslim record.

Not sure about quotation marks and italics here, however - a format issue. --tickle me 04:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this?
  • Bernard Lewis, in his book "The Jews of Islam" (1984) notes that Bat Ye'or's book "Le Dhimmi: Profil de l'oprimé en Orient et en Afrique du nord depuis la conquête arabe"(1980) emphasizes the negative aspects of the Muslim record.
--Reza1 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying Lewis cites Bat Ye'or is also problematic. CltFn, take note. --Reza1 04:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the years of publication need to be mentioned in this context. --tickle me 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The last version above is fine.--CltFn 13:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So, we reached at consensus. It doesn't need to be perfect. --Reza1 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Historian


The sources provided do not satisfy WP:RS. They are not peer reviewed academic works. --Reza1 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)