Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Islamophobia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Draft

I have created a draft version of this document so that we can all work on it to get an agreed version before the page protection expires so as to avoid edit wars. In particular, we should focus on the following issues: Axon

Introduction

The introduction is obviously the most contentious issue: what belongs here and what doesn't? Axon 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit war concentrates on the introduction. I suggest to stick to the dictionary definition of 'islamophobia', which is clear and NPOV and move all POV content, such as the definitions of people like Said and the leftist Runnymede Trust to sections 'proponents' and 'critics'.

Islamophobia encompasses the belief that [1] Islam promotes religious fanaticism, [2]violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, [3] terrorism and rejects concepts such as [4]equality, [5]tolerance, [6]democracy and [7]human rights. POV. 1. Empty word. What is religious fanatism? Every religion promotes adherence to the doctrines of the faith. 2. Islamic sources, e.g. Quran e.g. Surah At-Taubah, Hadith of Bukhari, Muslim etc contain orders to subjugate and kill non-Muslims. All scholars agree on this, there is only difference in POV on its scope. 3. Define terrorism. When terrorism is defined like 'violent actions towards non-combatants in order to strike fear in them in order to achieve political goals', jihad practice as described in the Qur'an and Sunnah fits the bill. 4. The Quran, Sunnah and, therefore, Shari'ah discriminates between men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim, idolator vs. "People of the Book". 5. Define tolerance. According to two madhdhabs, only people of the book can live as subjugated, 'protected', dhimmi's and continue practicing their religion under Muslim rule. According to the Shafi, polytheists as well can live as dhimmi's, while the austere Hanbali school doesn't recognize dhimmi's. 6. The Qur'an contains an injunction to rule by Allah's laws only, not by human law, otherwise, 'you will be among the losers'. 7. Islamic human rights are different from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Exactly because of that reason, islamic countries have come with their own "Cairo Declaration".

It is seen as a new form of racial prejudice... With all due respect, this is weasel wording. Seen by whom? Many people see islamophobia as a consequence of violence by Muslims.

--Germen 1 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

I see you are back, Germen. I hope we can all work together construcively and avoid some of the more unpleasant tactics we've seen here.

I hope this as well. Because I don't want to mobilize a group of supporters, I was forced to violate the 3RR rule in the past. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

You were forced to do no such thing: no-one held a gun to your head and made you revert the changes. If you wish to avoid the above impasse I ask you contribute to the discussion here constructively without recourse to calling out the muslims in the discussion and other such tactics. Axon 4 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

A group of people tries to push their POV by misusing their number to revert again and again. In order to keep opinions balanced I was forced to revert more often than three times within 24 hours.

I think identifying the members of one group as Muslim is relevant to the discussion, because their POV is pro-Muslim and therefore biased. Muslims believe they get a kind of spiritual air miles, 'hasanat', to defend and whitewash their faith. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Yet, you were warned about the 3RR. This is how Wikipedia works and, if you don't like it, I ask you either refrain from reverting or you move to another forum.

I think identifying Muslims is prejudiced and the essence of Islamophobia. On Wikipedia we are all equal and entitled to a fair say in the content of articles. Ones own biases and prejudices, including your own, are irrelevant to the discussion and are a show of bad faith. Axon 5 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

This means next time, the group with the biggest number of supporters or generate sufficienty aliases to win the reversion war.

If you think that will improve the quality of Wikipedia, OK, go ahead. I was honest till now, because I believed in good faith.

Perhaps, but the 3RR is not there to ensure the POV with most numbers gains precedence, but to cap edit wars. You can always come back the next day and revert the edits. Once again, if you dislike the rules of Wikipedia that is fine but this is not the forum to do so. What is more, this is not a scientific discussion, no the House of Reprensentatives, nor Yale: this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit with its own special rules to deal with that. There are no excuses for violating the 3RR and an admin will block you if you breach it again, possibly resulting in further consequences. Axon 5 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

I note you still maintain the defintion of islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Trust et al is "disputed" but have yet to provide any alternative defintions with citations. This would be most helpful, otherwise we have no reason to believe the defintion is contested.

I think we already have an agreement: islamophobia = [negative] prejudice against islam and/or Muslims. This is an alternative, uncontested and clear definition of islamophobia.

In order to find out whether a certain negative POV about islam or Muslims is a prejudice, we must find out which is the objective truth. I will open a section in Talk especially about the Runnymede Trust definition where we will examine the claims. Agreed? --Germen 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

No, because you have yet to demostrate the definition as provided by the Runnymede Trust is actually disputed by a non-significant minority at the very least (your own disagreement is not evidence of such). What is more, discovering the "objective truth" about Muslims is not what this article is about. If you wish to write about Muslims I ask you contribute to the Islam article. The "objective truth" about Muslims (such that it can exist over such a controversial subject) is irrelevant to writing an encyclopaedia article... we are not out to prove whether Islamophobia is justified or not (see WP:NOR). We are here to summarise existing knowledge in an encyclopaedic way. Axon 4 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. I gave you the concise definition of islamophobia in reputed online dictionaries. The Runnymede Trust Definition violates this definition and is internally inconsistent as I proved.

The Runnymede Trust is a partisan, leftist organisation with the stated goal to promote a so-called "multicultural society".

So this means both the source and the quality of the definition is disputed. QED.--Germen 5 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Sorry, but your line of reasoning above does not follow. Simply because some consider the Runnymede Trust to be biased it does not naturally follow (QED) that the definition they provide is similarly disputed. What is more, the two defintions do not seem inconsistent to me.

Again, this is just your POV and you need to demonstrate it is more than just a no-significant minority view (i.e. not just your own) to satisfy the basic rules of inclusion for Wikipedia - that is, a primary or secondary source offering an alternative defintion or dissenting or criticising the Runnymede definition. Your own "logic" is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm certainly not going to discuss the inconsitency or lack thereof the Runnymede Definition (I shall refer to this as the RD from now on) since that would be original research and this is not the forum for that.

Side note: could you also indent all your comments, including subsequent paragraphs and not just the first. This helps with clarity and figuring out who said wait. Cheers :) Axon 5 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that a lot of your points above are spurious. We have to accept some common ground (i.e. the definition of religious fanatacism) otherwise there would seem to be little discussion/ Again, you are really just re-stating your opinion as uncontested fact ("Islamic human rights are different", etc) without considering that we are attempting to discuss the definition of islamophobia, not whether that definition applies. Axon 1 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

OK, we will concentrate on the definition of islamophobia first. We both agree to the dictionary definition of islamophobia: any [negative] prejudice about Islam or Muslims. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

--Germen 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

With all due respect, the christophobia entry allows for the POV of Christian haters which practically defines the term and does say that christophobia is brought on by the past violence of "Christians". This article should probably do the same. I didn't think that encyclopedias were supposed to be p.c. and subject to 'popular' thought.

The RMT definition is overly broad. It's entriely possible for non prejudiced people to beleive that:

Islam promotes religious fanaticism

Taliban existed in one country.

violent tendencies towards non-Muslims

These were strictly military expeditions.

terrorism

and rejects concepts such as

1. equality

This hasn't been practiced in centuries and it was tolerant for its time.

1. tolerance

This hasn't either and it was very tolerant for its time.

1. democracy

This is an islamic empire.

1. human rights

Only a few countries practice this.

because quite simply because Orthodox Islam as promoted and practiced by most muslims fulfills every quality of the RMT definition of Islamophobia. Far better to define Islamophobia as a hatred of or prejudice against muslims. That is the plain meaning of the word, and the rest is commentary. Klonimus 05:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What occurs on the "Christanophobia" article is irrelevant to the discussion here: it is best you discuss problems with that page at the appropriate talk page. I'm surprised that such a page even exists given that it is patently a neologism created purely in reaction to islamophobia and homophobia.

Encylopaedias are not supposed to be "subject to 'popular' thought" but are supposed to summarise existing knowledge, not generate new knowledge. Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOR and the extensive discussion above and below on this very topic.

Finally, Do you have any actual evidence to back up the claim that the RD is "overly broad", other than spurious links to other Wikipedia articles? Axon 11:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia and the Crusades

Germen removed a section in the original version on the crusades and how it relates to islamophobia. I think this should be added back to the article, but with citation. I propose a call for comments and references on this topic. Axon 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crusades were wars. Christian pilgrims were attacked and they tried to defend themselves. Do you want to say that since Christians did not surrender lamely and tried to fight back, therefore they are prejudiced against Islam? I, for one, won't be surprised. 70.105.188.134 23:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really, what source are you using? Your recent contributions indicate a highly anti-Islamic "source".--Anonymous editor 00:03, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

All contributions you've made till date to Wikipedia are biased and highly pro-Islamic (Islamophillic). But that's not the point. Read any trusted source on crusades. The wikipedia article would be a good starting point.

I look forward to finding these so-called "trusted" sources, perhaps they are other hindu extremist ones like you have used in the past to add biased information to articles. You are saying that Christian pilgrims tried to "defend" themselves and so genocide of civilian population was justified? Ridiculous. The christians were indeed prejudiced against Islam, thats why the Pope's call to war was so successful. The constant calls to war made zealous christians eager to go to the lands and "fight". Everyone knows it was fear of the Muslims in this case, especially Muslim expansion. Any credible source, even Christian ones will tell you that. Anyways I don't know why you are bringing this up when the article is already locked for disputes. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 05:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

This article is protected from editing "until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." I don't know what are you saying about why this should not be brought up. Please read wikipedia policies. Locking does not mean that the locked version is endorsed by wikipedia. It was a good strategy to make the article correspond as closely to your POV as possible, and get it locked immediately. Yes, of course it was fear of Muslim expansion, as you said. But where exactly do you find irrationality or prejudice in that? What else could be have been expected? Christians welcoming Muslim invaders with open arms? As mentioned earlier, the wikipedia article on crusades provides fairly good elementary information about the reasons behind the crusades. Please read it. Additionally, you might want to read the causes of crusades section of the Encylopedia Britannica article on crusades. I dont't think I need to pin point at particular portions of these article. Tell me if I do. It is at best, an undefendable POV that the crusades represented Christian prejudices against Islam, or were a symptom of an irrational fear of Islam. 70.105.188.134 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny, the dispute was not mine. It was between Germen and other users. I just got here a day ago. Please get your facts straight before accusing me of having a "good strategy to get the article locked". Btw, "fear of Muslims" as you wrote = Islamophobia and there was prejudice against Muslims in the Christian world of the crusades, resulting in so many volunteers to the Pope's call to fight them. And the article you cited is not from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Only a few editors like you have claimed "fear of muslims = islamophobia", which has been debated even by the proponents of the term. I would go by the more established definition: "prejudice against Islam and Muslims." I didn't even say "fear of muslims". I said "fear of muslim expansion." What makes you think it was prejudice against Muslims that led Christians defend themselves and try to recover occupied territories including their holy cities? I am not surprised you are following double standards here too: While muslims were justified in invading the Byzantine empire, occupying Spain, destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and persecuting pilgrims, Christians were irrational in even fearing Muslim expansion into their territories. 70.105.188.134 07:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read more on the crusades as you are clearly misinformed by what they were, or how many there were and why did they occur so many times in prolongated periods. I have no time to sit here and have you accuse me of "Double standards" when I didn't even really add/remove from the article. If you have a personal problem with Muslims, please deal with it rather then making extensive debates on talk pages. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 07:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The article is from the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, first published in 1911, and now in public domain. Your quick reply suggests you did not read any of these articles. 70.105.188.134 07:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your lack of knowledge says the same. Anyways, I don't really care to carry this any longer as there is no motive, beside your constant rants, quick false accusations, and lack of knowledge on the subject. I am sure the other editors here who know history will be happy enough to debate with you. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 07:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Another very typical behavior. When nothing else works, just say "you know nothing." Seriously, there's not point talking to you.

Indeed, Anonymous. This is a common discussion technique among Muslims (like Anonymous editor). They mimick it from the Quran, in which Muhammad stated: "Allah knows what you do not know", after he was confronted with some critical questions of non-Muslims. So they follow qiyaas (Arab for 'analogy'). Too bad it doesn't help to advance science in this way. For that reason, human development in Arab countries is extremely low. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

Readers, please read about the causes of crusades and be cautious of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Articles such as this one are nurtured by sheer numbers of editors and administrators who want to use wikipedia as a platform to promote certain ideologies. 70.105.188.134 07:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to give yourself some more credibility I ask that you register a user name and log into Wikipedia, familiarising yourself with our poliicies, in particular NPOV. Your comments above and the IP address you are editing (its history includes vandalism of a user's talk page) do not do your argument any favors. Previous experience has taught many of us to be wary of anonymous comments.

That aside, though the Arabs were by no means innocent of bloodshed, to characterise the crusades simply as the Christians "defending themselves" against hostile muslims is not accurate either. This is all irrelevant: many have compared the current islamophobic climate with the climate of the crusades and thus the point need be raised in the discussion of this article. How that is done depends much on how constructively you engage in discourse on this talk page. Axon 09:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right that it is irrelevant. Even if it were true that the Christians were the agressors and entirely responsible for the wars, it does not mean Islamophobia. Nobody would claim that the wars between England and France imply any phobias although the terms Francophobia and Anglophobia do exist. Please cite trustable sources (which do not include quran.ca and khalifah.org)on who are these many people who have compared the "current islamophobic climate" with the climate of the crusades. Also, since this comparision does not amount to saying that crusades were a manifestation of Islamophobia, if you happen to have any authentic sources, I think still the article should contain exactly what you just said: "many have compared the current islamophobic climate with the climate of the crusades" and not something that implies that "the history of Islamophobia goes back to the crusades." I always include my IP (which identifies me uniquely.) Please refrain from changing the topic and resorting to personal slander. 70.105.188.134 17:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Axon frequently resorts to personal slander. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

I dispute the accusation of slander: I clearly ask people to confirm if they are the parties responsible and have not made any accusations. In the above case i was quite correct that teh anon IP had been vandalising IP addresses (see evidence below). Axon 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

If you read my starting remark you will see I started this discussion with an open call for citations and references on this topic.

I'm not making personal slanders... if that IP address marks you uniquely, then you have previously vandalised a user's page here[1], here[2] and here[3]. As we've seen, unpleasant activity from anon IPs have caused us other problems on this page. Axon 19:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why, then, even in the absence of any references, you are still adamant to keep this highly POV Christianity bashing speculation in the article? 70.105.188.134

I'm not adamant about anything, I'm just asking for a call of references for the inclusion of this content. If there are no references to source this material, I agree it should not be in the ariticle. Given time, though, I'm sure some references can be found to back this up.

BTW, do you have anything to say about your vandalising of user's pages above? Axon 19:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More slandering of Axon. Talking about hypocrisy.... --Germen 5 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Once again, there is evidence of the vandlising above and I quite clearly am asking for information about whether the user has or has not vandalised user pages. I see no reason I should not ask. Axon 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Normally it works this way: You first read about the topic, find a lot of references stating a particular position, and then you decide to include it in the article.

It does not work this way: You first write whatever you would love people to believe, let it stay as long as people don't object, and when people object, just keep it there and wait for an indefinite time wishing some references would spring up. This page is meant to discuss the article on Islamophobia. Please don't bring other issues here. 70.105.188.134 20:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've always wanted to ask: does bolding or capitalising your comments ever actually convince anyone of anything? It must do as so many editors (see above) seem to resort to it.

I wasn't aware there was a right and wrong way of calling for references for writing articles! Which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you referring to above?

That aside, a google test returns 3k+ hits[4] for islamophobia and the Crusades (some of which are mirrors of this article) demonstrating the link has been made before by others before. An article in the New Statesman also seems to make reference to this link[5] as well as the following paper/book: Constructing the Muslim Enemy Edited by Emran Qureshi and Michael A. Sells[6]. Now, that's what I call a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Axon 28 June 2005 13:34 (UTC)

On "other issues": I don't see how the subject is seperate to this discussion. All three incidents seem related to editing on Islam-related pages, bear a stricking resemblence to bad-faith remarks made elsewhere on this talk page and do require some explanation to help build the trust and confidence that is the hallmark of cooperative Wikipedia editing.

With this in mind, I once again ask you to explain these edits to user pages. Were you responsible for these edits? If so, why did you do it and will you do it again? Can I expect my user page to be vandalised? Axon 28 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

And more unnuendo and slandering.... --Germen 5 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Once again, Germen, you accusastions of slander are misplaced. I'm clearly asking for confirmation and an explanation and not making an accusation. Given the behaviour of yourself and other anonymous IPs on this page I think this is fully justified. if you did not want to be "slandered" you should not have indulged in your own reprehensible behaviour (violating the 3RR etc) and broken down the trust on this page. Axon 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Interesting, your IP signs one of it's remarks here[7] as deeptrivia. This would mean not only did you vandalise user pages but you also attempted to vote twice on the VfD for Islamophilia, once as 70.105.188.134 [8] and again as Deeptrivia [9]. You also appear to have attempted to similarly vote twice on the Vfd for Persecution of Muslims. Please explain? Are you and Deeptrivia the same person? Axon 28 June 2005 16:21 (UTC)

More slander.... --Germen 5 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Once again, the edit history clearly confirms this and Deeptrivia has yet to deny this. I am not making slander, I am asking for an explanation to the evidence I have found here. Axon 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Whoa! After Axon's convincing demonstration that many people have linked Islamophobia with the Crusades, no doubt should be left. Following his footsteps, I found out that there are many other things that people have attributed to the crusades. I think the first step towards improving the factual accuracy of Wikipedia would be to mention crusades on all these pages:

Rugby 108,000 + hits
Television 729,000 + hits
Internet 885,000 + hits
Cloning 57,700 hits
Lesbianism 7,700 hits
Photography 182,000 hits
Anti-semitism 95,000 hits
Communism 170,000 hits
Cybercrime 3500+ hits
Organic farming 19,000 + hits
atom bomb 50,000 + hits

and many more.

This was an eye-opener for me because I did not know the crusades were so important in the history. But the way, the articles you mentioned just says that Islam is mentioned in British textbooks only for its confrontation with the West during Crusades (the word is used only once in the article). Although that doesn't prove anything that you want to prove, the google test by itself is the most convincing proof of anything I've ever seen. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Please register and login: anonymous user's are generally distrusted. To respond to your rather over-elaborated point, I supply other evidence to back up the assertion a comparison between current islamophobia and the Crusades (which you selectively choose to ignore) and not just the Google test to demonstrate the link has been made. Your comments above are in bad faith, and are not really constructive. If you have any actual evidence or citations, please mention them and refrain from silly remarks.

I also notice that this IP address has also been vandalising user pages[10] and shares a editing history similarity with other logins/IPs. Please verify, are you the anonymous IP address that has been commenting on this talk page and who may be Deeptrivia. Axon 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Yes, and I object to your hawkish attitude. My point might be witty, but it is not in bad faith. I am concerned about the degrading standard of wikipedia. I was shocked by the pathetic quality of arguments some editors have been presenting in an attempt to justify the inclusion of crusades in this article. I commented on the other accessible source that you pointed out, [11], which does not prove anything at all. I don't intend to buy an expensive book written by Emran Qureshi et al. which would either be like rest of the sources, just containing the word crusade in some unrelated context, or simply some Mein Kampf kind of book. In any case, Emran Qureshi is not even a historian. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:46 (UTC)

My IP is 130.203.202.156 Thank you. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:53 (UTC)

PS: This is a University IP which might be shared by others. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 02:59 (UTC)

PPS: By the way, what evidence do you want me to present? Since you are making a claim, you have to present evidence. If someone tells me that Martians were involved in the Trafalgar 'battle' , it is not my responsibility to find sources that disprove it, and I am sure none would exist. deeptrivia 29 June 2005 03:08 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Crusades because they were a consequence rather than a reason for islamophobia. It would be more logically sound to mention the conquest of the vast Christian territories of North Africa and the Middle East and the endless Muslim invasions of Spain and southern Italy as a plausible reason for 'islamophobia'. --Germen 1 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

As we can see from the above evidence I have provided, the comparison between the current climate of Islamophobia and the Crusades has been made before, at least by a signicant minority and in respectable publications like the New Statesmen. For this reason, I hold that this should be noted in the article. Axon 4 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

You have not provided any solid evidence, you repeated islamic and leftist propaganda. The New Statesman is, according to Wikipedia, known as a leftist journal. Please state the logical chain connecting crusades as a cause and islamophobia as a consequence. As long as you cannot prove your bold assertion, this claim does not belong in the introduction. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

As clearly pointed out by deeptrivia, the Statesman article that you are showing as evidence just says in one line: " at my own school, I came across Islam only in the negative and confrontational context of the Crusades." It doesn't even come close to saying that the crusades were caused due to/in spite of/ were a result of Islamophobia. At the very best, this describes the Islamophobia of the British authors who wrote these textbooks a few decades back. You are yet to show any credible evidence. 141.151.236.224 4 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Exactly. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

Please register and login - remarks and comments from anonymous IPs will be treated by suspicion on this page, given the high incidence of hostile anonymous IPs editing on the subject of Islam.

No-one is claiming that: what we are examining is the relationship between the Crusades and Islamophobia as highlighted in the article and references above.

Some more references:

Today Europe relishes in the propaganda against Islam, creating myths and stereotypes and perpetuating them in order to create a climate of Islamophobia. Words like Saracens, barbaric and Infidels where created in the past to negatively and wrongly stereotype Muslims and today they have been replaced by words like Terrorist, Fundamentalist or Extremists we often see in the western media.[12]

Private webpage. Not very objective as a source. Further: I agree, we should call Muslim terrorists, fundamentalists and extremists pious Muslims, as they follow the example of their "Prophet"Muhammad (pbuh). --Germen 5 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think i've provided more than enough reputable sources to demonstrate the association has been made before. Axon 5 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

We cannot afford the easy, facile prejudices that inform thinking about Islam and have since the middle ages. When I was in Jerusalem, I saw that our tradition of Islamophobia developed, at the time of the crusades, at exactly the same time as our tradition of Jewish anti-Semitism. The two were linked, and in the 20th century we saw where such bigoted thinking could lead. We simply cannot afford to do it again.[13] Axon 4 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

As I requested before: please state the locical connection between crusades as a cause and islamophobia as a consequence. If you cannot do so, acknowledge. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I'm discussing the relationship between islamophobia and The Crusades, a comparison which has clearly been made before. I'm certainly not trying to state that islamophobia was a consequence of the Crusades, logical or otherwise, just that The Crusades was a period of islamophobia as we would define it today. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but constructive contributions to the discussion are welcome. Axon 5 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Axon please summarize all the reputable sources that you said you have mentioned, showing clear comparision between the crusades and Islamophobia, so that it is convenient for us to go through them. I went through the whole conversation again, and couldn't find any. Also, I hope, according to Wikipedia Policy, Mein Kampf cannot be used as a source to justify that Judaism and Communism are the twin evils of the world, and that Aryans are the master race. I mean to say, not all published books are valid sources. The credibility of the author is important. 130.203.202.156 5 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

I almost hate to intrude, but I had always linked the two myself. Of course, since I am not published, no one could use me as a source. Nice to see we've invoked Godwin's Law a second time here, though! Perhaps reference to the far less than credible Protocols of the Elders of Zion would have been more approrpiate? --Habap 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

I would ignore the remarks from anon IPs: that one looks like one of Germen's IPs, but it is difficult to be sure although the edits the IP makes mirror his own closely. It could also be Deeptrivia who is known for logging in anonymously. I lose track. I leave it as an exercise for individuals to find my citations above since I can't be bothered to sift through the endless commentary above and below. Axon 5 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Actually, it's me. I keep forgetting to log in. Now, can you kindly summarize the sources. I failed to find any reputable source. deeptrivia July 5, 2005 23:46 (UTC)

It is a fact that right before the crusades started Muslims invaded Turkey which was Christian (remember Constantine?) at the time, and then the Pope called for the defense of Christian lands. I would say they awoke the sleeping giant. (comment by User:152.163.100.6 )

In absence of any sources, I think it is high time to finally decide to remove the alleged causal relationship between crusades and Islamophobia. deeptrivia 02:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did note reputable several sources above (Guardian, a book on the subject, New Statesmen, etc). The google test demonstrates numerous examples of people contrasting islamophobia with the crusades. Please do not ignore the comments and sources I took time and effort to dig out otherwise you waste my time. Axon 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please address the objections raised against these sources in the preceding talk. For example, the New Statesman article "describes the Islamophobia of the British authors who wrote these textbooks a few decades back." (comment by 141.151.236.224 4 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)) deeptrivia 04:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe i have addressed the concerns above. Once again, I'm not going to go through all this again (hours of pointless, incompromising talk) just to because you demand it. If there is anything you think I missed or didn't properly respond to I recommend you wade through the discussion above yourself and precis them in a new section below. The above is too incomprehensible to me, mostly thanks to people not properly formatting their comments. Axon 08:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Your belief is wrong, you have not provided even a spat of evidence. --Germen 11:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that why no-one has met my challenge and summarised my references above and their problems with them? Axon 11:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)