Talk:Persecution of Muslims

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


Proposal to put in Chronological order instead of Geographic[edit]

I feel that the article will be better if it was in chronological form. It would read more like an article that explained hardships that the Muslims have faced over time; beginning from the time of Muhammad and ending in modern times. Right now, I feel the article reads more like a list. (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC) It would also be good to be chronological that the Mongols are the oldest post-African and third oldest race in the world now a victim of total genocide with including Israeli genocide against the Mongols of Israel and Russia genocide against 74 million Mongol type human beings including unregistered births, US genocide against the US Mongol commuity — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)



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

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

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

That is a subjective opinion without any clear reference to fact. It borders on racism and is offensive. BigBoreV8 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)BigBoreV8

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

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

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

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

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

59 Hindu Piligrims including 14 children. Corrected the numbers.

'Hindu persecution of Muslims'

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

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

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

Gujarat was not a genocide[edit]

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

Wow! Thats like saying Stalin killed a 100 000 Russians at once but thats okay because there were 120 million of them. A genocide is a mass murder, and many will consider this to be exactly that because there were people employed by the state (i.e. police and army officers) involved in the killings. --Anonymous editor 17:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Genocide means the deliberate destruction of a social identity, not mass murder per se. Killing the last six members of a people is genocide, but killing a few hundred of a population of many millions is mass murder. E.g. the Holocaust can be termed as an attempted genocide. --Germen 12:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Then the question should be whether the Gujarat riots were an attempt to destroy the social identity of Muslims within that state or not. Which, I'm guessing, is up to a matter of debate.--T-Boy 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I have never come across any article that states anything to the effect of linking Gujrat Riots and "destruction of social identity" Nshuks7 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton outline[edit]

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


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

And you believe that a program of forced conversions and expulsions of an already conquered minority is an "armed response to an invasion" that took place 800 years earlier? I suppose if the modern Welsh started kidnapping English children and raising them to speak Welsh, or expelling Englishmen and confiscating all their property, you would call that their "armed response" to the English invasion of Wales 800 years ago. - Mustafaa 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Scottish were fighting with the English from long before William Wallace up until the Young Pretender was finally defeated. England invaded several times. Even today the Scots still dislike the English. Today people have a democratic political process. The Scottish Independence Party seeks Scottish independence. If they ever got enough votes, they could vote themselves out of Great Britian. Regardless... you do have a point in way. However, although events surrounding and leading up to the Spanish Inquisition were obviously persecution, a sentence or two of context leading up to the time period would create for a better NPOV. For example, in 1946, the Czechs expelled all Germans from Czechoslovakia. That was "persecution of Germans" although discussing it, without mentioning the Munich Conference, WWII, and the Sudenland would be improper. Barneygumble 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Just because it is a longer time doesn't change the necessity to include the historical context. How is the Czechs expelling Germans (because of German invasion) any different the Spanish expelling the Moors (because of their invasion)? Just because it was several hundred years didn't change Spanish resentment. It's a strong POV not to include any background. Any comments on my Crusade arguement? Barneygumble 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just because it was several hundred years didn't change Spanish resentment. You claim, then, that "Spanish resentment" at the events of 800 years ago led to the events described here. This is a testable hypothesis; if it were true, their persecution would have been confined to Muslims alone. In reality, the Spanish did the same thing to the Jews at the same time, so you argument holds no water. Frankly, you might as sensibly throw in an explanation of the Roman conquest, or for that matter a paragraph on the Castilians' suppression of the Mozarabic rite of the southern Christians. Every event has an infinite amount of "background", but most of it is simply not relevant.
As for the Crusades - what argument? The Crusaders had conquered Jerusalem; it was their territory, not the enemy's. And again, your suggestion's flaw is shown by the fact that they killed the Jewish civilians there as well as the Muslim ones, proving that military considerations were the last thing in their mind as they butchered the inhabitants. - Mustafaa 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Crusaders actually warmed up on Jewish civilians in their own countries first, and by the 4th Crusade they were actually sacking Christian cities (e.g. Constantinople) instead. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. Of course, the Christian cities they sacked were Eastern Orthodox, so I guess in their mind that fit into the general scheme of killing people of different religions - though the 4th Crusade's work was more about Venetian profits than anything else. - Mustafaa 00:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Would you mind not including the Qing dynasty. There was no persecution of Muslims during the Qing. There is no evidence of Muslims being persecuted, nor does this article even try to provide some. It remains an unsibstantiated allegation. Which is not very nice. If someone comes up with some evidence then it can be put back, but at the moment it just sits there. Is there any reason to keep it at all? Lao Wai 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's easy enough to find sources that say there was (I'm not sure offhand how reliably.) However, until the China section is written, I don't see any particular point to having an empty subsection. - Mustafaa 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well that would depend on how you define persecution. If by that you mean the Qing government suppressed uprisings by Islamic extremists, then, well, perhaps. But the Qing did not start those rebellions. They did not persecute the Hui. There were no laws restricting Islamic practice or teaching. The Hui remained privileged in law during the Qing right up to the end. Admittedly some Muslims seem to feel oppressed simply because they lived in a country ruled by pagans, but that is not quite the same as oppression as most people would see it. Lao Wai 10:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbolic statements, hence POV tag[edit]

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

Discrimination is included in Persecution of Christians and in Persecution of Jews. Why should this article be the exception? - Mustafaa 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, I do not object to include discrimination in Persecution of Muslims, but I object to describe mere discrimination as persecution, as (as far as I know) there are no cases of Israeli citizenship holding Muslims being tortured or murdered. There are some cases of discrimination, though. The recommended way thus would be referring to the subsection as "discrimination of Muslims in Israel". The repression of the Palestines in the occupied territories does not seem to be religiously motivated (because secular, Christian as well as Muslim Palestinians receive the same treatment). --Germen 08:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
See Kafr Qasim massacre. It is perfectly possible (indeed, typical) for religious discrimination to be directed even-handedly at members of all religions other than the oppressor's own: the litmus test would be if Palestinian Jews and Samaritans were treated like other Palestinians (reductio ad absurdum!.) However, the Israel-Palestine issue is a difficult case, because ethnic, religious, and nationalistic motivations seem almost inextricably merged - and, when the section is written, it will have to take this confusion into account. - Mustafaa 23:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, this incident is a clear case of persecution. I am not sure whether this is religious persecution or not as there were no religious reasons, except Zionist-nationalist motivations, cited. Also it seemed to have been an incident with a single perpetrator. Are there more cases of persecution of Israeli Arabs (e.g. harassment, violence, murder etc.?) --Germen 11:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag[edit]

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

First of all, I removed the tag on the religious conflict and Islam page specifically in relation to this. Don't engage in double-standards, you can't have a tag on one and no tags on the other. The Lebanese Civil War was definitely an example of religious persecution as people were killed just because they were Shi'ite/Sunni/Greek Orthodox/Maronite and for NO other reason than that.Heraclius 18:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed that tag because the problems were solved or localized in subparagraphs. Neither happened here. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 18:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you least explain why the persecution by Muslims should be included in the first sentence? That has nothing to do with this article, and it's already present in the see also section.Heraclius 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Violence begets violence. A major reason why Muslims were persecuted is the previous persecution by them, and vise versa, e.g. in Lebanon, Bosnia, Spain. For this reason, addition of that subsentence will balance the article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Look at all the other persecution articles. Do any of them have a similar sentence to the one you're adding?Heraclius 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I explicitly added this sentence to the Persecution by Muslims] article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I am just a passer-by but surely that is a non-sequitur. It may be that Muslims are a special case. It may be that it is true in this case but not in others. Or it may not. The only valid question is whether it is true or not. And I suspect it is not. Polytheistic religions tend not to go in for persecution. Monotheistic ones do. Even though there has been a long and gradual world-wide trend for the latter to eliminate the former, the former still do not persecute the latter as a general rule. So it is unlikely that the Muslims attract any real level of persecution just because they persecute. So it does not belong because it is not true and can't be sourced anyway. Lao Wai 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Lao, recent history proves otherwise. All the 20th century incidents of Muslim persecution followed persecution by Muslims, e.g. in Bosnia, India, Israel and the Occupied Territories, discrimination of Muslim after the 11 September attacks. Counterexamples in which Muslims were persecuted which did not persecute others are welcome. As a second argument: not all religions are agressive, e.g. Buddhists will not persecute others as well as many Christians and pagan religions. If Muslims persecute them, they will not persecute Muslims in return. So your non-sequitur is a farce. In addition: I just give arguments here for including a reference to persecution by Muslims. Including information needs not top be sourced, only the information itself need to be sourced. Please refer to the applicable Wikipedia policy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The riots in India were a response to a terrorist attack on a train carrying women and children. The death of 800 Muslims in onw town where 250 hindus were also killed does not count as persecution.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute[edit]

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

Should we add a section: "Israeli persecution of Muslims"[edit]

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

I strongly support the idea of it. Faz90 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Are they persecuted for their Muslim beliefs? Does Israel "persecute" Muslim Palestinians but not Christian Palestinians? Are there reliable sources for any of this? Can you ensure that the section will not consist simply of original research? If not, then the section would not belong here, and, in fact, would contravene Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Wow... let's stop all criticism of Israel by calling any critic an anti-semite. There is enough documented evidence by the UN and by global and Israeli NGOs on Israeli treatment / genocide of the displaced populations of Palestine. Of course, with Israel being the most criticised country by the UN is just a small reminder of the fact. --BigBoreV8

And there is more than enough documented evidence of the UN deploying bias, double standards, hypocrisy and outright lying when it comes to "criticizing" Israel, not to mention all the whitewashing of real instances of oppression, apartheid and orchestrated mass murder in Africa and the rest of the Middle East. Which behavior on the UN's part is of course totally understandable, given that the majority of its members are muslim and third-world countries that are objectively notorious for antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, witch-hunts, political assassinations and other sorts of politically and socially oppressive practices. Strangely enough, the more liberal members of the UN seem to overlook this obvious fact completely. In other words, the UN is the last place to look for objective or rational observation (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

POV: Secular Western persecution of Muslims[edit]

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

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

muslims killed by muslims??[edit]

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

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

Why? White washing and promoting hatred towards non muslims, while absolving muslims of blame over the greatest persecution of both muslims and non muslims?

If it's not already there (in some other article) the persecution of sects within Islam, by other sects, should be covered. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed this from the introduction[edit]

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

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

Suggested move[edit]

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

I wish there was a neutral word that summed up "discrimination", "hatred" and "prejudice" towards Muslims. Not Islamophobia, since it is recent.Bless sins 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, "anti-Muslim sentiment".Bless sins 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I think we should really investigate the idea of doing so. Padishah5000 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for obvious reasons. This move would just be an attempt to divert the criticisms against Islamophobia (an article which already exists), and pretend they are irrelevant. Anything useful in this article really should be moved to Islamophobia, and this article should be deleted, and/or redirected same as Historical persecution by Muslims.--SefringleTalk 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. the topic is valid. If something is from other topic, move the text into proper article. Mukadderat 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

American Persecution?[edit]

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

In your "Persecution of Christians" wiki, there is this:

In March 2002, five people were killed in an attack on a church in Islamabad, including an American schoolgirl and her mother.

Yet, there are not similar circumstances or a historical timeline for "Persecution of Muslims". Instead, it's argued to put it in "Islamophobia". I didn't know killing people was equivalent to fear; then shouldn't going to war with Islam states be part of Islamophobia?

This isn't a very fair or balanced wiki, in regards to its counterpart. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talkcontribs) 01:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Crimea ancestral homeland of muslims?![edit]

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

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

Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey[edit]

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

What about[edit]

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

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

People need to think maturely n in civilised manner, why should a human being turn against a fellow human being. Plz educate me cause am yet to understand Muhammad Nassor Mwanaka (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

Is [2] a reliable source? I saw no evidence of reliability on its home page. Many of its pages don't even have names of authors on them. I don't think its reliable, but I'd like to hear other opinions.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia in the U.S.[edit]

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

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

Isn't any murder of a Muslim a form of persecution? In your "Persecution of Christians" article, you seem to feel that's viable.

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

Not neutral[edit]

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

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

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

I have removed the above uncited nonsense.

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

Persecutions of Muslims during Crusades[edit]

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

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

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


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

Mongol persecution of Muslims[edit]

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

Persecution of Muslims in China[edit]

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

Remember, this article is emphasized on the persecution of Muslims. So no wonder why this article is full of Islamic propaganda and conspiracy theories. Not to mention that this article is outdated already.

Recent edit[edit]

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

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

Persecution of Muslims in Republic of Turkey (2)[edit]

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

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

It was such an eye sore I stopped reading the biased nonsense and removed the entire section. We can add in the relevant bits and facts later. In Islam, seperate of religion and state is not an acceptable concept (except for Islamic anarchism. Nonetheless, this is not religious persecution, since the State of Turkey is not limiting the powers of a religious group because of its particular religion, but because it is a religion. Gabr-el 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely tendentious. That section needs to stay gone. Aramgar (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem massacre[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In answering your response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS as extremist Hindu organization[edit]

Both sources directly support the description given of RSS, but Banksenergy (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the description [3]. The removal remains quite unjustified, so please present a defense or else it will be reinstated to the article. Chedorlaomer (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See poisoning the well. Third party descriptions bias the article in favor of a certain viewpoint and is not WP:NPOV. Notice that the Jamaat-e-Islami is never referred to always as an "extremist Muslim organization".Banksenergy (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Poisoning the well? We describe RSS participation in the massacres, noting that it is an Hindu extremist organization with Fascist tendencies. To poison the well we would present negative information ahead of time in order to discredit a statement or action of the group that by itself does not look bad. In this case, the item already looks bad (participation in massacres), so if anything, noting that RSS is an extremist Hindu organization protects the reputation of mainstream Hindus. It really is the opposite of poisoning the well. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The "fascist tendencies" is highly disputed, and is the very definition of poisoning the well. The interesting thing is that if someone were to keep adding this descriptor to Jamaat-e-Islami (even though hundreds of scholars have described them as fascist) then the wikipedia thought police would start sending them death threats.Banksenergy (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of muslim family[edit]

This picture is just pan-turkist propoganda.

Article scope[edit]

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

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

Persecution of Muslims in Switzerland[edit]

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

see another new article regarding ban and opposing religous freedom: [4]

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

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

To repeat the arguments given to you on the main article's talkpage, it is not "persecuation," since praying has not been made illegal, neither has building mosques been banned, nor has anyone been arrested for being a Muslim. The (proposed) Swiss law simply bans the construction of minnarets. If you would like to add this section to a differnt article, say, for example, "discrimination" or "building-codes", I won't stop you. However, in this article, it is misplaced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
as i clearly depicted the case even though "no eyes were reading" and "no minds were understandin"; minaret is an inseparable part of a mosque. there is no difference between banning the construction of minaret and burning all Qurans and banning reading it. -- (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
running word games for hiding the persecution is the same quality that minaret banners possess.-- (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"there is no difference between banning the construction of minaret and burning all Qurans and banning reading it" There is a significant difference: the former prohibits you from doing something, the latter is an obligation.Smirkingman (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See Also section[edit]

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

Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922[edit]

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

The article is being constatly redirected here is a link to a working version: --Hittit (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


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

The 366 was directly involved, see HRW. And those killed were Muslim. I see no reason for your revert. Grandmaster 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Show me where, the HRW claims that the 366 regiment was directly involved in the massacres. Also please read what I wrote, I wrote provide evidences that they were killed as Muslims, killed because they were Muslims and not because of a territorial conflict. Ionidasz (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I did, not so long ago, on talk of another article. At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [5] And the people killed were all Muslims. Grandmaster 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

The independent confirmation comes from HRW. They do not refer to anyone, they conducted their own investigation and made their conclusions. Grandmaster 18:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not true, they interviewed refugees. Besides, you have not provided any evidences that any of those actions were caused because they were Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talkcontribs) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
They interviewed a lot of people on both sides, and conducted their own investigation. It is their conclusion. And HRW is a neutral source. Also, the people who were killed were Muslim. This article is not just about the religious persecution, it is about persecution in general. Check the examples in the article, not all the instances mentioned were on religious grounds. Grandmaster 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What is the procedure to undo the redirect? Robert Willie (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You can't, 13 votes for delete..., there was a clear majority for its deletion. Even the neutral keep supported the merge. If you undo it, it will be resubmitted for deletion. Ionidasz (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Anatolian Massacres[edit]

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

- ===Anatolia===


Genocide Monument and Museum in Igdir

During the First World War many Muslim people (Turkish and Kurdish) were killed by Armenians in eastern Anatolia (including Bayburt, Bitlis, Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars and Mus),[1] [2] and by Greeks in western Anatolia (including Izmir, Manisa and Usak).[3] These happened during the Anatolia campaign of Greece when they occupied parts of western Anatolia and Russian campaign of eastern Anatolia with the help of Armenian paramilitary forces (see Turkish Independence War).

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

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

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I have removed your request for a Third Opinion from the list at the Third Opinion Project. I'm sorry but, per the instructions on the Third Opinion project page, Third Opinions are not available for issues where there has been no discussion on the talk page. You might want to consider the Content Noticeboard or a Request for Comments as an alternative. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Also, there used to be a wiki entry which discussed this material. Check out Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922. It got directed to this entry somehow and after sometime most of its content disappeared. Robert Willie (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thought I might add my thoughts, for what they are worth... While your sources are probably good, you might give some thought to the language you have used. While there may be no doubt that what happened was terrible (though I'm making no comment either way), perhaps it would be best to find alternate words to genocide and attrocities. The events may have meant exactly those things but these are words which are emotive and ring alarm bells for wiki editors. If you use words like this without quoting someone or without very strong sources to back it up comprehensively, people will instantly jump to quote WP:NPOV.
Instead, list the facts and let readers make decisions for themselves. You don't need to use the word genocide if it's proceeded by a sentence which says one group killed x hundreds of thousands of another group. It is implied. Wiki editors will also jump to delete content when the source of your content is called, A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility. It is a very unfortunate title for a book if it is trying to present a factual point of view. Try to find a different source or temper the language you use to introduce it. You'll find if you write things on a factual basis (rather than an emotive one) and back it up with factual, relatively neutral sources, other editors will quite happily accept your contributions. Remember, Wikipedia is a source of facts, not a source of opinions. Present your facts and let people form their own opinions. That can often be more powerful that telling them to think something. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ T. Akcam: A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility, pages 327-329
  2. ^ G. Lewy:The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a disputed genocide, pages 115-122
  3. ^ U.S. Vice-Consul James Loder Park to Secretary of State, Smyrna, 11 April 1923. US archives US767.68116/34


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

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

Muslim-on-Muslim violence[edit]

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

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


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

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

Rubbish, theres plenty of sources statements as such. Feel free to counter source anything, no reason to remove.
At any rate, that fella convicted of having sex because he said he was jewish and wasnt was criticised as such racial/religious bias both WITHIN and without the countryLihaas (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Cordoba mosque[edit]

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

Absolutely not. Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars-Nazi Collaboration[edit]

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

Copyright problem removed[edit]

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

Lack of tolerance[edit]

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

Iberian Peninsula[edit]

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

Jan Hus[edit]

There is a picture in the text of Jan Hus, with subtext:
Reformer Jan Hus, a victim of the Inquisition, being burned to death.
It is always nice to illustrate an article, but this illustration is not to the point: Jan Hus was - to my knowledge - not a persecuted Muslim, and this reference is hence not relevant to this article. Riyadi (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Persecution articles and sources[edit]

Any kind of "persecution" articles are likely to be written by people with strong points of view on such issues, which considering that anyone can in principle contribute, make their claims unreliable. At the start of this list, on Anatolia, we read "It is estimated that in the course of World War I and the Turkish War of Independence 2.5 million people died in Anatolia while hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from former Ottoman territories and Russia.[1] During the First World War many Muslim people (Turkish and Kurdish) were killed by Armenians in eastern Anatolia (including Bayburt, Bitlis, Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars and Mus),[2] [3] and by Greeks in western Anatolia (including Izmir, Manisa and Usak).[4]" Some evidence should be cited that the 2.5 millions who died were indeed Muslims (for it seems to be implied), and if so then in context it would be useful to also have an estimate about how many non-Muslims were missing. Because one can only properly speak of religious persecution if only a single religious group was being persecuted, and indeed if these deaths were caused by a people of a different religion. The article fails also to point out the more generally accepted view that it was a persecution of Armenians rather than a persecution of Muslim Turks and Kurds that took place in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. Secondly, Stanford J. Shaw who is being cited as a reference [4] is also cited in Wikipedia for his denial of the Armenian Holocaust. This puts the veracity of the other sources also in doubt.Skamnelis (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Persecution in India(Edit Request)[edit]

This article on Maratha Empire,Dogra and Sikh Empire are completely baseless and written with biased mind, has false information. Recent Godhra riots,Assam violence,Babri Masjid need to be mentioned please add them, I am removing Sikh ,maratha,Dogra persecution. There is no evidence of destruction of mosques or muslim persecution happeneed at that time — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that rather than removing vast sections of the article like this, which are themselves sourced from elsewhere, you should be instead be citing sources which dispute the claims made. Otherwise, it could appear to others that you're merely editing the article to match your own point of view. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I am proceeding with an edit that might seem like a vast swathe removed, and the reason is: I have read the reference, and the reference of the reference (a 5 part biography of Aurangzeb), neither of which specify any aggression towards the Islamic populations. In fact, there are a few manufactured views in the article currently nowhere touched upon in the reference. Please feel free to revert/debate this edit. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
After exhaustively going through the links provided as references for this entire section, the write-up is heavily opinionated, ranging from complete fabrication of history to misinterpretations and dubious. Most references are to searches in Google Books, to nothing page or paragraph in specific. I am going ahead with individually removing specious edits. To the editor who put these passages in place: fights between state actors is not even close to persecution: if Marathas invaded Mughals and the casualties were X and Y on respective sides, it does NOT mean that X Hindus and Y Muslims were "massacred". Please refrain from imagining history. Nshuks7 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i have seen the references, reference does not point out to persecution of Muslims in particular, it tells pillaging of Marathas. Same is the case of Sikh Empire, where persons battle kills are written as Muslim persecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"The persecution of Muslims started in late 1600s and early 1700s when Hindu Maratha Empire started Plundering the Muslim Mughal Empire. Shivaji declared holy war against Muslim Mughal Empire of India and declared Hindu Swarajya(Independent Hindu Kingdom). Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb though tried for many years to suppress the Hindu Revolt however he failed to do so, in the end Maratha Empire power remained intact after 27 year wars which Hindu Maratha fought from Shivaji death(1680) to 1707(Aurangzeb Death).[82] For 27 years Aurangzeb fought Maratha Armies in Deccan but to no avail with Aurangzeb failure to defeat Marathas ended the great Mughal Empire. Maratha Commander in chief Santaji Ghorpade remained a terror for Mughals including Aurangzeb. Santaji attacked Aurangzeb camp in 1695 which almost took the Emperor life which was saved by his quick feets as he flee from the tent,.[83] After 1707 Maratha Empire started to dominate the Indian subcontinent whereas Muslim Mughal emperors found it impossible to check the growing power of Hindu Empire. One by one Maratha started plundering Muslim Mughal Empire as well as the Muslim population"

At the end there is a reference, if you check the reference it says people of Mughal empire are plundered not muslims. Mughal empire has vast number of Hindus(in fact Hindus are majority, more than 50%). (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Hrushi

Persecution in Anatolia mentions turks killed, and mention of genocide by turks of armenians, greeks, syriacs, etc is absent[edit]

Mentions turks killed but does not mention the genocide of Armenians, Greeks, Syriacs and others, at the same time and this time intentionally by the Turks.)

This account of history is not balanced. It only mentions the Turks killed. And absents the greater genocide of others by the turks by an intentional program of genocide. Contrary to the turks killed by others just defending themselves in a war to prevent their own genocide by the Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of muslims by Islam and muslims!![edit]

Why doesn't the article mention any of the majority of persecution against muslims today, which is done by islam and muslim countries and other muslims!??

Is it only mentioning persecution of muslims by non muslims. And when muslims are persecuted by other muslims and by islam itself, then this is ignored. This is anti non muslim bias, and labelling muslims as victims of non muslims. When the truth is muslims are victims of Islam, islamic countries, islamic law, and other muslims!

No surprise that muslims are abandoning their fellows, because they only care to criticise non muslims, and any foul treatment of muslims by other muslims and islamic nations is perfectly acceptable and loved.

Only non muslims are to be criticised for muslims.

Thank you. Takes a bow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Light bulb iconBAn 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 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if we simply rename the title as " The Killing of Muslims". People have killed other people throughout history for a myriad of reasons. They will continue to do so. It's our integral weakness. Religion,politics,jealousies,greed,...etc.,are just excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote requested[edit]

This sentence;
"The Abbasid caliphate was destroyed and the Islamic civilization, especially Mesopotamia, suffered much devastation and was replaced by Tengriism and Buddhism as the official religion of the empire."
is referenced by this source, Brown, Daniel W. (2003), New Introduction to Islam, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 185-187. Searching through the 2009 edition I find no reference to Tengriism or Buddhism. Instead, on page 231, "By contrast, the Mongols were religiously and culturally conquered by Islam. When the Ilkhanid ruler Ghazan Khan converted to Islam in 1295....". Thanks. --Defensor Ursa 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


This section should also bring up the massacres and the genocide done to the Sunni Muslims by the Alawite ruling minority supported by Iran, Russia and China. Between 30,000 to 50,000 people were reportedly killed during Hama massacre in 1982. Moreover, during the recent Syrian uprising, over 50,000 civilians were reportedly killed by Assad army, security forces and irregular troops (Shabiha), not to mention the torture (often to death)done by Assad security forces, the reported destruction of mosques, the systematic blasphemy and religious mockery practised by Assad's army and irregular troops (Shabiha)during storming the towns and villages, the reported continuous rape, the unjustified detentions that may last for years, the arbitrarily court verdicts, summary executions, targeting makeshift hospitals, the famous massacres of Houla, Qubair, Homs clock Square ... and the list goes on.

All the above was carried out by the Baath sectarian discriminatory party primarily on religious basis, these accounts are backed with tons of evidences and documentation and is absolutely worth mentioning in the section of Syria. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulRahman370 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But you say it was by Alawites and they are Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well how do we define Muslims? if (most of the time) the ones being persecuted are Sunnis only and by almost all the religious groups including the Islamic sects? In any case, the Alawites themselves don't consider themselves Muslims and accuse the Sunnis of considering them "infidels". What could be a better evidence than the letter signed by 80 Alawite notables in 1936 urging the French Prime Minister Léon Blum to grant the Alawite minority a separate state from that of the Muslims? I quote: "The Alawite community would refuse to be annexed to Muslim Syria because in Syria the official religion of the state is Islam, and according to Islam the Alawis are considered infidels”. Whether Sunnis consider them Muslims or not, or they themselves refuse to be called Muslims, the persecution, killing, torturing, raping, slandering and jailing carried out in Syria are meant to annihilate the Islamic presence which forms a threat to the state of Israel that occupies a part of the Syrian land dear to the hearts of the Sunnis. In other words, when the Assad troops reportedly shell the mosques, burn the Quran, force the citizens to utter blasphemy, they do that because of hatred towards Islam, not Sunnism. I am not saying that there are no Sunni members in the army and the irregular troops, and I am not implying that all the Alawites agree to Assad's policy, but I certainly do say, that the entire Assad regime was founded for the purpose of undermining the Muslim majority, which forms a threat to the neighboring country, Israel. Hence, the massacres and the persecution there are worthy of listing under the topic of persecution of Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulRahman370 (talkcontribs) 04:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Islamophobic incidents?[edit]

A couple editors seem to be finagling on how to delete the article entirely. Now there may be unnecessary duplication with some ongoing major persecutions that belong in Persecution of Muslims and perhaps some more minor incidents here that could be moved over there. Has this article had the same problems? I have compared both articles to Persecution of Jews and Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War. I doubt people have been trying to delete those. CarolMooreDC 20:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

To finagle= To cheat or swindle; to use crafty, deceitful methods (see wiktionary). Thank you for assuming good faith, my dear.
Actually, I came here to search for a discussion what caused the split of this article into two seperate lists, back in November 2011.
But now you think that I am a cheater, maybe you should report me first at the appropriate board. I don't have the time to defend myself and discuss articles at the same time.See also WP:AOBF, by the way. Anyway, best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Finagle in Carol-speak: to work to achieve an end through tortuous argument of dubious (not necessarily deceptive) merit. But maybe I was thinking of another word. Otherwise, I guess I better write all the dictionaries and tell them to expand their definitions. CarolMooreDC 12:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, that makes me glad that I didn't have time to take some unneccesary actions on your comment above. Peace!;)Jeff5102 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Big problem[edit]

I can see huge portions of valid material removed from this article [6] without discussion and allegedly to place it to other articles, but I do not see them included in other articles. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You may or may not be right. However, reverting back 1 1/2 years worth of edits is not the way to do things. If you feel there is content missing then please will you add it in manually. Op47 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research and cherry picking[edit]

I have added the rest of the information from Akcam's book, which was cherry picked by the "new" editor Goodnessislam. Upon further review, this paragraph;

  • "It is estimated that in the course of World War I and the Turkish War of Independence 2.5 million Muslims died in Anatolia while hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from former Ottoman territories and Russia."< Shissler, Ada Holland. (2003), Between two empires, p. 22>

..has been distorted to give the impression that 2.5 million Muslims died due to massacres. Nothing in Shissler's book on page 22 states anything of massacres. Therefore I have removed this paragraph and the original research sentence in the following paragraph of, "Western scholars estimated that overall up to 2.5 million Muslims perished in these massacres."
Also, I have removed the sentence, "Armenians loyal to the Ottoman state were also targeted by the Armenian nationalists."<G. Lewy:The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a disputed genocide, pages 115-122>
..of which I found no mention through the pages of 115-122. I would caution our "new" editor Goodnessislam against any continued original research and cherry picking. Such actions will result in sanctions from Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment on this dispute per se. However, unfortunately, during the dispute, My Very Best Wishes reverted the article bact to over 1 1/2 years ago. If the disputed section needs further work please try to avoid damaging the rest of the article.
It appears User:Goodnessislam has simply logged out to continue his disruptive editing. Re-adding original research and using McCarthy's book as a "source". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of all this content by the IP User: - amongst other things, it was not neutral, and the lengthy list of sources was entirely excessive. Additionally, I would have to say that the version of the article User:Kansas Bear and User:My very best wishes were trying to restore was an improvement on the current one. Much useful material has been removed without good reason; but it should ideally be integrated into the current version of the article, rather than simply reverting. Robofish (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


1914-1922 Muslim Genocide in Anatolia and the Caucasus[1]

In 1914-22, the armed groups of Armenian Dashnak and Hunchak parties and the Armenian volunteers serving in the Russian, Greek and French armies carried out a systematic extermination of Turks, Azerbaijanis and Kurds in Anatolia and the Caucasus. 523.955 Muslim civilians were identified as victims, not including those missing or buried in mass graves. Western scholars estimated that overall up to 2.5 million Muslims perished in these massacres. Armenians loyal to the Ottoman state were also targeted by the Armenian nationalists.[1]

It is estimated that in the course of World War I and the Turkish War of Independence 2.5 million people died in Anatolia while hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from former Ottoman territories and Russia.[2][1]

During the First World War many Muslim people (Turkish and Kurdish) were killed by Armenians in eastern Anatolia (including Bayburt, Bitlis, Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars and Mus),[3][4] and by Greeks in western Anatolia (including Izmir, Manisa and Usak).[5] Turks started petition to commemorate and recognize Soykırım (it is turkish word, English: Genocide) the 1914-1922 Muslim Genocide in Anatolia and the Caucasus on the official web-site of US White House.[6][1]

On May 14, 1919 a fleet of British, American and French warships brought an entire Greek division into the harbour of Smyrna. The landing was followed by a general slaughter of the Turkish population. Greek gangs roamed the streets looting and killing. As the Greek army pushed into Anatolia the local population was subjected to massacres, ravaging and raping.[7][1]

Johannes Kolmodin was a Swedish orientalist in Smyrna. He wrote in his letters that the Greek army had burned 250 Turkish villages.[8]

Source: "U.S. Library of Congress:" 'Bristol Papers' - General Correspondence Container #34. U.S. Ambassador Mark Bristol.

"While the Dashnaks(Armenian revolutionaries) were in power they did everything in the world to keep the
 pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars;(and) by committing outrages
 against the Moslems; by massacring the Moslems; and robbing and destroying
 their homes;....During the last two years the Armenians in Russian Caucasus
 have shown no ability to govern themselves and especially no ability to 
 govern or handle other races under their power."

Source: Quoted by General Hamelin in a letter to the High Commissioner, February 2, 1919, in the official history, "Les Armees Francaises au Levant," vol. 1, p. 122.

"They [Armenians] burned and destroyed many Turkish villages as punitive
 measures in their advance and practically all Turkish villages in their
 retreat from Marash."

Source: John Dewey, "The Turkish Tragedy", The New Republic, Volume 40, November 12, 1928, pp. 268-269.

"that they [Armenians] boasted of having raised an army of one hundred 
 and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at 
 least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population."

Deaths: 2.500,000 - 3,800,000[1]

U.S. Ambassador Mark Bristol, William Langer, Ambassador Layard, James Barton, Stanford Shaw, Arthur Chester, John Dewey, Robert Dunn, Papazian, Nalbandian, Ohanus Appressian, Jorge Blanco Villalta, General Nikolayef, General Bolkovitinof, General Prjevalski, General Odiselidze, Meguerditche, Kazimir, Motayef, Twerdokhlebof, General Hamelin, Rawlinson, Avetis Aharonian, Dr. Stephan Eshnanie, Varandian, General Bronsart, Arfa,Dr. Hamlin, Boghos Nubar, Sarkis Atamian, Katchaznouni, Rachel Bortnick, Halide Edip, McCarthy, W. B. Allen, Paul Muratoff and many others.

J. C. Hurewitz, Professor of Government Emeritus, Former Director of the Middle East Institute (1971-1984), Columbia University.

Bernard Lewis, Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History, Princeton University.

Halil Inalcik, University Professor of Ottoman History & Member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, University of Chicago.

Peter Golden, Professor of History, Rutgers University, Newark.

Stanford Shaw, Professor of History, University of California at Los Angeles.

Thomas Naff, Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania.

Ronald Jennings, Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies, University of Illinois.

Howard Reed, Professor of History, University of Connecticut.

Dankwart Rustow, Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, City University Graduate School, New York.

John Woods, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago.

John Masson Smith, Jr., Professor of History, University of California at Berkeley.

Alan Fisher, Professor of History, Michigan State University.

Avigdor Levy, Professor of History, Brandeis University.

Andreas G. E. Bodrogligetti, Professor of History, University of California at Los Angeles.

Kathleen Burrill, Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Columbia University.

Roderic Davison, Professor of History, George Washington University.

Walter Denny, Professor of History, University of Massachusetts.

Caesar Farah, Professor of History, University of Minnesota.

Tom Goodrich, Professor of History, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Tibor Halasi-Kun, Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, Columbia University.

Justin McCarthy, Professor of History, University of Louisville.

Jon Mandaville, Professor of History, Portland State University (Oregon).

Robert Olson, Professor of History, University of Kentucky.

Madeline Zilfi, Professor of History, University of Maryland.

James Stewart-Robinson, Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan. the list goes on and on and on.....


1. "The Armenian Revolutionary Movement" by Louise Nalbandian,

  University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1975

2. "Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890-1902" by William I. Lenger, Professor

  of History, Harward University, Boston, Alfred A. Knopt, New York, 1951

3. "Turkey in Europe" by Sir Charles Elliot,

  Edward & Arnold, London, 1900

4. "The Chatnam House Version and Other Middle-Eastern Studies" by

  Elie Kedouri, Praeger Publishers, New York, Washington, 1972

5. "The Rising Crescent" by Ernest Jackh,

  Farrar & Reinhart, Inc., New York & Toronto, 1944

6. "Spiritual and Political Evolutions in Islam" by Felix Valyi,

  Mogan, Paul, Trench & Truebner & Co., London, 1925

7. "The Struggle for Power in Moslem Asia" by E. Alexander Powell,

  The Century Co., New York, London, 1924

8. "Struggle for Transcaucasia" by Feruz Kazemzadeh,

  Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1951

9. "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey" (2 volumes) by

  Stanford J. Shaw, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York,
  Melbourne, 1977

10."The Western Question in Greece and Turkey" by Arnold J. Toynbee,

  Constable & Co., Ltd., London, Bombay & Sydney, 1922

11."The Caliph's Last Heritage" by Sir Mark Sykes,

  Macmillan & Co., London, 1915

12."Men Are Like That" by Leonard A. Hartill,

  Bobbs Co., Indianapolis, 1928

13."Adventures in the Near East, 1918-22" by A. Rawlinson,

  Dodd, Meade & Co., 1925

14."World Alive, A Personal Story" by Robert Dunn,

  Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1952

15."From Sardarapat to Serves and Lousanne" by Avetis Aharonian,

  The Armenian Review Magazine, Volume 15 (Fall 1962) through 17 
  (Spring 1964)

16."Armenia on the Road to Independence" by Richard G. Hovanessian,

  University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1967

17."The Rebirth of Turkey" by Clair Price,

  Thomas Seltzer, New York, 1923

18."Caucasian Battlefields" by W. B. Allen & Paul Muratoff,

  Cambridge, 1953

19."Partition of Turkey" by Harry N. Howard,

  H. Fertig, New York, 1966

20."The King-Crane Commission" by Harry N. Howard,

  Beirut, 1963

21."United States Policy and Partition of Turkey" by Laurence Evans,

  John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1965

22."British Documents Related to Turkish War of Independence" by Gothard


1. Neside Kerem Demir, "Bir Sehid Anasina Tarihin Soyledikleri:

  Turkiye'nin Ermeni Meselesi," Hulbe Basim ve Yayin T.A.S., 
  Ankara, 1982. (Ingilizce Birinci Baski: 1980, "The Armenian 
  Question in Turkey")

2. Veysel Eroglu, "Ermeni Mezalimi," Sebil Yayinevi, Istanbul, 1978.

3. A. Alper Gazigiray, "Osmanlilardan Gunumuze Kadar Vesikalarla Ermeni

  Teroru'nun Kaynaklari," Gozen Kitabevi, Istanbul, 1982.

4. Dr. Kirzioglu M. Fahrettin, "Kars Ili ve Cevresinde Ermeni Mezalimi,"

  Kardes Matbaasi, Ankara, 1970.

T.C. Basbakanlik Osmanli Arsivi, Babiali, Istanbul:

a) Yildiz Esas Evraki b) Yildiz Perakende c) Irade Defterleri d) Cemaat-i Gayr-i Muslime Defterleri e) Meclisi Vukela Mazbatalari f) Dahiliye Nezareti, Kalem-i Mahsus Dosyalari g) Dahiliye Nezareti, Sifre Defterleri h) Babiali Evrak Odasi: Siyasi Kartonlar i) Babiali Evrak Odasi: Muhimme Kartonlari

T.C. Disisleri Bakanligi, Hazine-i Evrak, Defterdarlik

a) Harb-i Umumi b) Muteferrik Kartonlar

British Archives:

a) Parliamentary Papers (Hansard): Commons/Lords b) Foreign Office: Confidential Print: Various Collections c) Foreign Office: 424/239-253: Turkey: Correspondence - Annual Reports d) Foreign Office: 608 e) Foreign Office: 371, Political Intelligence: General Correspondence f) Foreign Office: 800/240, Ryan Papers g) Foreign Office: 800/151, Curzon Papers h) Foreign Office: 839: The Eastern Conference: Lausanne. 53 files

India Office Records and Library, Blackfriars Road, London.

a) L/Political and Security/10/851-855 (five boxes), "Turkey: Treaty of

  Peace: 1918-1923"

b) L/P & S/10/1031, "Near East: Turkey and Greece: Lausanne Conference,


c) L/P & S/11/154 d) L/P & S/11/1031

French Archives

Archives du ministere des Affaires entrangeres, Quai d'Orsay, Paris.

a) Documents Diplomatiques: Affaires Armeniens: 1895-1914 Collections b) Guerre: 1914-1918: Turquie: Legion d'Orient. c) Levant, 1918-1929: Armenie.

Official Publications, Published Documents, Diplomatic Correspondence, Agreements, Minutes and Others

A. Turkey (The Ottoman Empire and The Republic of Turkey)

Akarli, E. (ed.); "Belgelerle Tanzimat," (istanbul, 1978). (Gn. Kur., ATASE); "Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi," V. XXXI (81), (Dec. 1982).

; "Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi," V. XXXII (83),

(Dec. 1983). Hocaoglu, M. (ed.); "Ittihad-i Anasir-i Osmaniye Heyeti Nizamnamesi," (Istanbul, 1912). Meray, S. L. (trans./ed.) "Lozan Baris Konferansi: Tutanaklar-Belgeler," (Ankara, 1978), 2 vols. Meray, S. L./O. Olcay (ed.); "Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nun Cokus Belgeleri; Mondros Birakismasi, Sevr Andlasmasi, Ilgili Belgeler," (Ankara, 1977). (Osmanli Devleti, Dahiliye Nezareti); "Aspirations et Agissements Revolutionnaires des Comites Armeniens avant et apres la proclamation de la Constitution Ottomane," (Istanbul, 1917).

; "Ermeni Komitelerinin Amal ve Hareket-i Ihtilaliyesi: Ilan-i

Mesrutiyetten Evvel ve Sonra," (Istanbul, 1916).

; "Idare-i Umumiye ve Vilayet Kanunu," (Istanbul, 1913).

; "Muharrerat-i Umumiye Mecmuasi, V. I (Istanbul, 1914).

; "Muharrerat-i Umumiye Mecmuasi, V. II (Istanbul, 1915).

; "Muharrerat-i Umumiye Mecmuasi, V. III (Istanbul, 1916).

; "Muharrerat-i Umumiye Mecmuasi, V. IV (Istanbul, 1917).

(Osmanli Devleti, Hariciye Nezareti); "Imtiyazat-i Ecnebiyye'nin Lagvindan Dolayi Memurine Teblig Olunacak Talimatname," (Istanbul, 1915). (Osmanli Devleti, Harbiye Nezareti); "Islam Ahalinin Ducar Olduklari Mezalim Hakkinda Vesaike Mustenid Malumat," (Istanbul, 1919).

; (IV. Ordu) "Aliye Divan-i Harbi Orfisinde Tedkik Olunan Mesele-yi

Siyasiye Hakkinda Izahat," (Istanbul, 1916). Turkozu, H. K. (ed.); "Osmanli ve Sovyet Belgeleriyle Ermeni Mezalimi," (Ankara, 1982).

; "Turkiye Buyuk Millet Meclisi Gizli Celse Zabitlari," (Ankara, 1985),

4 vols.


Adamof, E. E. (ed.); "Sovyet Devlet Arsivi Belgeleriyle Anadolu'nun Taksimi Plani," (tran. H. Rahmi, ed. H. Mutlucag), (Istanbul, 1972).

Altinay, A. R.; "Iki Komite - Iki Kital," (Istanbul, 1919).

; "Kafkas Yollarinda Hatiralar ve Tahassusler," (Istanbul, 1919).

; "Turkiye'de Katolik Propagandasi," Turk tarihi Encumeni Mecmuasi,

V. XIV/82-5 (Sept. 1924). Asaf Muammer; "Harb ve Mesulleri," (Istanbul, 1918). Akboy, C.; "Birinci Dunya Harbinde Turk Harbi, V. I: Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nun Siyasi ve Askeri Hazirliklari ve Harbe Girisi," (Gn. Kur., Ankara, 1970). Akgun, S.; "General Harbord'un Anadolu Gezisi ve (Ermeni Meselesi'ne Dair) Raporu: Kurtulus Savasi Baslangicinda," (Istanbul, 1981). Akin, I.; "Turk Devrim Tarihi," (Istanbul, 1983). Aksin, S.; "Jon Turkler ve Ittihad ve Terakki," (Istanbul, 1976). Basar, Z. (ed.);"Ermenilerden Gorduklerimiz," (Ankara, 1974).

; "Ermeniler Hakkinda Makaleler - Derlemeler," (Ankara, 1978).

Belen, F.; "Birinci Dunya Harbinde Turk Harbi," (Ankara, 1964). Deliorman, A.; "Turklere Karsi Ermeni Komitecileri," (Istanbul, 1980). Ege, N. N. (ed.); "Prens Sabahaddin: Hayati ve Ilmi Mudafaalari," (Istanbul, 1977). Ercikan, A.; "Ermenilerin Bizans ve Osmanli Imparatorluklarindaki Rolleri," (Ankara, 1949). Gurun, K.; 'Ermeni Sorunu yahut bir sorun nasil yaratilir?', "Turk Tarihinde Ermeniler Sempozyumu," (Izmir, 1983). Hocaoglu, M.; "Arsiv Vesikalariyla Tarihte Ermeni Mezalimi ve Ermeniler," (Istanbul, 1976). Karal, E. S.; "Osmanli Tarihi," V. V (1983, 4th ed.); V. VI (1976, 2nd ed.); V. VII (1977, 2nd ed.); V. VIII (1983, 2nd ed.) Ankara. Kurat, Y. T.; "Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nun Paylasilmasi," (Ankara, 1976). Orel, S./S. Yuca; "Ermenilerce Talat Pasa'ya Atfedilen Telgraflarin Icyuzu," (Ankara, 1983). [Also in English translation.] Ahmad, F.; "The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics," (Oxford, 1969).

                          'We closed the roads and mountain passes that 
                           might serve as ways of escape for the Turks 
                           and then proceeded in the work of extermination.'
                                                 (Ohanus Appressian - 1919)
                          'In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists 
                           a single Turkish soul.' (Sahak Melkonian - 1920)
All of this has not addressed the cherry picking of information from Akcam's book nor has it addressed the original research employed by this source;
  • "It is estimated that in the course of World War I and the Turkish War of Independence 2.5 million Muslims died in Anatolia while hundreds of thousands of refugees arrived from former Ottoman territories and Russia."< Shissler, Ada Holland. (2003), Between two empires, p. 22>
..has been distorted to give the impression that 2.5 million Muslims died due to massacres. Nothing in Shissler's book on page 22 states anything of massacres. Therefore I have removed this paragraph and the original research sentence in the following paragraph of, "Western scholars estimated that overall up to 2.5 million Muslims perished in these massacres."
Therefore, all of this "information" is meaningless unless you address the issues that have been presented. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c d e f Justin Mccarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922, (Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin Press, 1995). Pp. 383., [1]. (in English)
  2. ^ Shissler, Ada Holland. (2003), Between two empires, p. 22
  3. ^ T. Akcam: A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility, pages 327-329
  4. ^ G. Lewy:The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a disputed genocide, pages 115-122
  5. ^ U.S. Vice-Consul James Loder Park to Secretary of State, Smyrna, 11 April 1923. US archives US767.68116/34
  6. ^ Commemorate and recognize Soykırım – the 1914-1922 Muslim Genocide in Anatolia and the Caucasus
  7. ^ Shaw,Stanford J. & Shaw, Ezel Kural (2002), History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, p. 342
  8. ^ Özdalga, Elizabeth. The last dragoman: the Swedish orientalist Johannes Kolmodin as scholar, activist and diplomat (2006), Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, p.63

Propaganda, exaggerate numbers and far away from the truth article[edit]

The article is full of propaganda figures and is very but very far away from the truth. I suggest of deleting it. That is a false article with many propaganda sources on it. I have seen numbers that are so much exaggerated that are 10 times more than the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talkcontribs) 22:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to restore all the references and referenced information you have removed and start a conversation. NOT, remove information you don't like and then spout nonsense about "propaganda figures" and "far away from the truth". I see nothing but petty vandalism on your part(ie. removing references and referenced information). --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed figures that I am certain that are far way from the truth, and added the other 2 genocides that the turks have done for certain the Greek and the Assyrian. Why those 2 genocides are keep being removed? Do you have a problem with them? Also you should learn how to behave before talking, not only you remove truths and adding propaganda but you are insulting the ones that are adding the truth!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talkcontribs) 00:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion here means nothing. Wikipedia articles are written using reliable sources. What you have removed are references and referenced information, citing only your opinion as a reason("I have removed figures that I am certain that are far way from the truth). The 2 other genocides were not mentioned in the reference(Taner Akcam) that sources that specific sentence, which makes your addition to that sentence original research. That is why I removed the addition of those 2 genocides(ie. they are unsourced for that specific sentence). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is one thing called the truth and another thing called propaganda...That is not opinionated those are the facts....!!! If you are unable to behave and understand the difference and continue to insult the ones that are writing the truth that is not my problem, there is a problem though on creating a jihadist, turkish propaganda type of article, full of lies which do not permit any truth to be written and any propaganda to be removed...Did those 2 genocides (the Greek and the Assyrian) took place or not? Your opinion doesn't count and I don't care about it, the facts do!!!! AND LEARN HOW TO BEHAVE!!!! Your insults will not stop anything of going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talkcontribs) 07:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a very helpful article about how to make sure Wikipedia shows the truth. regards --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a propaganda article that has nothing to do with the truth and its moderators are not even letting the truth to be added and the propaganda to get deleted....

Who ever knows what is the procedure of deleting this, based on real facts and figures and how many signatures, if any, are needed, he/she is more than welcome to write here. Any efforts made to fix this, have being all blocked and erased by its moderators.

2 globally recognized genocides (the Greek and the Assyrian) have being already deleted twice by the moderators of this article in one night, and all the propaganda that has been deleted, was added again by the same moderators in the same night twice, that find it wise to promote jihadism and turkish propaganda and block any efforts of presenting the truth.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talkcontribs) 12:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody add war on terror in this article[edit]

Teaksmitty (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In the aftermath of 9/11, many muslims were persecuted, but it takes time to search for those references. If you have the time, please do it yourself Teaksmitty.—Khabboos (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of a sentence without references[edit]

I removed a sentence without references about the 'police standing down' - anyway, the Special Investigation Team of the Supreme Court of India has ruled that no such thing happened. Please discuss before you start an edit war with me.—Khabboos (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also planning to remove the sentence, "There was widespread violence against the Muslims in Hyderabad city, as an aftermath of the 'Police Action' (officially Operation Polo) and Jawaharlal Nehru had a committee investigate the pogrom against Muslims, but the resulting Sundarlal Report was never made public (an estimated 50–200,000 Muslims are believed to have been killed)", as the linked reference is dead.—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Please follow the guidance at WP:DEADLINK. It took me no more than a minute to get a link, and in any case sources do not have to be online. It's fixed now anyway, and I've added the volume information. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Dougweller.—Khabboos (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Persecution of Muslims[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Persecution of Muslims's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased article[edit]

This article is strongly biased.

The Russian wars against the Chechen Muslims are omitted.

The Russian genocides against the Circassian Muslims, the Crimean Tatars and so on are given far too little space.

The deportation and genocide on Crimean Tatars 1944 is more or less justified with a reference to Collaboraationism, but the article fails to mention that the majority of male Crimean Tatars were at that time enlisted in the Red Army and that the Supreme Soviet in 1967 declared that the communist claim about the majority of Tatars being collaborators was wrong.

The body count for Iraq includes US soldiers that were killed, plus lots of Muslims killing each other. It is not clear that the operation in Iraq was a matter of "Persecution of Muslims" anyway, so it is not obvious that the body count for Iraq belongs in this article at all.

Joreberg (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Joreberg, you can fix this yourself. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

removal of section about the US[edit]

Dougweller has mass deleted the section about United States without discussion. It seems that his concern is about original research and BLP. I was in the process of reviewing and deleting BLP issues but Dougweller removed the section again without engaging the talk page. I think the section does need focus and work, but is relevant to the topic and is cited by several reliable sources. --Jmundo (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You have simply inserted the same content that another editor created. The content seems to have been built on the premise that because Muslims were killed in wars, then the wars constitute a persecution of Muslims. There are a number of problems with the content including WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP. I see you have already joined the discussion here, which is good. - MrX 21:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Note also the perversion of the definition of "discrimination" as in this change: "Deleted section whose only supporting reference source dishonestly equates curtailment of attempts to introduce barbaric Shari'a Law with "discrimination". Under said mentality, it would be "discrimination" for Jews and Christians to oppose dhimmi status." The source in question is the now-ethically-compromised ACLU page here which mendaciously assets:

In a disturbing trend, anti-Muslim bigotry has recently crept into state legislatures around the country. Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws designed to prevent courts from applying Islamic or “Sharia” law....

Well, goodness gracious me; how dare anyone deign to thwart this medieval tyranny masquerading as "religious freedom" ("...for me but not for thee.")? It's a moral and intellectual outrage; and I cannot in any good conscience consider the ACLU a reliable source on the issue.--Froglich (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Censuring the US section[edit]

This is the new material without any BLP violation and written in the most neutral tone that keeps being reverted by one user based solely on his POV : 1 I'm not interested in treating this talk page as a forum, so I'm just listing here a sample of sources available to support the section on the US in the hope of that we can start a serious/NPOV discussion about the content.

Note that I have not included the ACLU report in way not to engage the "I don't' like it" argument, but the citation is sound. The ACLU is the premier institution for protecting civil rights in the US. I'm sure that the reports from the ACLU is used in other articles. --Jmundo (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I was about to support the inclusion but it occurred to me to check the lead again. This makes it explicit that the page is a list of incidents of ethnic cleansing. That's not backed by the ACLU or the other sources. If this was an article on discrimination then of course there should be a section on the US. Persecution and discrimination are not the same in any case. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I think is good idea to update the lead to reflect the content of the article. I don't understand why the article can't include modern incidents of discrimination. Actually, an article about Anti-Muslim Discrimination in the United States is not a bad idea as plenty of material and sources are available.--Jmundo (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd oppose any change in the lead without an RfC. A new article seems fine. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the truth?[edit]

"Violent xenophobic riots took place in the Lichtenhagen district of Rostock, Germany, targeting mainly Muslim Turkish Germans; the Rostock-Lichtenhagen riots were the worst mob attacks against Turks in postwar Germany."

or if you follow the Link "Rostock-Lichtenhagen riots" in the text above:

"... Primarily Roma from Romania, they were left by overstretched shelter staff to camp out in front of the building for days at a time. (...) The original target, the asylum accommodation, was evacuated on the second day, whereupon the mob stormed a neighbouring building where 115 Vietnamese immigrants, a social worker and a ZDF television crew had mistakenly been left behind. ..."

The riots were definitively xenophobic, but "Islamophobia" played no role. Muslims, the permanent victims?!


The source makes it clear that the activities described were anti-Hui. It also talks of an Islamic policy of "mobilizing Muslim forces against the United Kingdom, Holland, China and Russia in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.” It says "Many available sources reveal the brutality and violence of the Japanese against the Hui." No where does it say Japan was being anti-Muslim. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hui means Muslim in the Chinese language. Being Hui in the Republic of China (1911-1949) by definition means being a Muslim, you could not be a Hui without being Muslim. Hui jiao (Hui religion) meant Islam and Hui meant Muslim in the Republic of China and still mean that in Taiwan today, the Communists changed the name in the 1950s to Yi-si-lan jiao (Islam religion) and Mu-si-lin (Muslim). Only in the 1980s did the People's Republic of China let some non-Muslims like the Ding (surname) classify themselves as Hui because of their Muslim ancestry. Japan mobilizing Muslim forces for its own pursposes has nothing to do with Japan being Muslim friendly. Inciting other people to do their bidding as slaves does not make them their friend. Japan made it clear that the Yamato (Japanese) race was superior, that they regarded the Emperor as a God (which is offensive to Islam) and wanted to use Muslims as its puppets in its war against the west.

@What other purpose does rubbing pork fat on Mosques serve other than insulting Islam?Rajmaan (talk) 7:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

What you are actually doing here is interpreting the source[7]. It is true that the Japanese used their religion to humiliate them - but the article nowhere says that they were persecuted for being Muslims. You need to read WP:NOR. If the source doesn't say they were persecuted for being Muslim than we shouldn't say that. The Japanese were trying to subjugate the China (and the Hui) and used what they could in a brutal fashion. You need reliable sources that clearly state that they had an anti-Muslim agenda. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Middle East and Palestine - are we sure Christian Arabs, etc are left alone?[edit]

Isn't Israeli settler violence anti-Arab? That section doesn't mention Muslims. I'm aware that they are mainly Muslims but there are also Christian, Druze and Samaritan groups. Do we actually know that they are safe from Israeli settler violence, that only Muslims are targeted? Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been numerous attacks against Palsstinain Christaisns by Israeli settlers and regular Israelis as well. AcidSnow (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Muslims claim that they are being attacked just because they are Muslims. Shouldn't we add that secondly Christian, Druze and Samaritan groups are minority and are not the main target. Muslims are Israeli government main target who are majority, are in millions and are persecuted. I think you guys should turn on the TV sometime when bombs being dropped on Muslim Palestinian families which include babies. No bombs have been dropped on Christian, Druze and Samaritan groups. Moorrests (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, obviously it is not against the Muslims, it is against the Palestinians as a whole, in the same way that the American government was not targeting Muslims in Irak in 2003, but some Iraki factions if not all Irak, including Christians. It does not go unnoticed that it has that ideological background, that Palestine lies in the context of the Muslim world, and that its most active political agents are overall (but not only) Muslim, but PLO is not, and other factions are not either. Again, it is against the Palestinians. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Overwhelming majority in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria are Muslims who are being slaughter everyday in large numbers. And the funny thing is the perpetrator say they are targeting 'extremist' in another word anybody who is remotely religious and Muslim. Moorrests (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The victims of the US war economy may actually be of no matter what religion. The USA has supported the staunchest versions of Islam, like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (turned into "freedom fighters"), or the Saudi Wahhabis/Salafists if needed to suppress inconvenient secular or progressive forces (cf. Latin America, or Afghanistan). It depends on the US alliance policy in each circumstances, and in the Middle East, as it is well known, Israel is the US strategic ally. Bush did cite God and Christianity to justify his actions, but actually he and those who have followed his policy have destroyed directly or indirectly the oldest Christian communities in the world (Irak and Syria). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Mujahideen were proxy. If they had US support how come so many of the Mujahideen died and not many Soviet soldier died. Again US supports the Saudi king a brutal dictator. Let me ask you a question when democratically elected Morsi or Hamas government came to power who did US support 'Islamist' or corrupt leaders like Abbas and Sisi. Moorrests (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hamas or the Palestinians know well what the fight is about, not a religion dispute or war. Many European individuals are willing to help West Bank Palestinians risking their own lives, be sure most of them are not reaching out for their allegiance to Islam. I may agree with you or not, but Palestinian-Israeli war does not belong in this article. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


I don't see anything there that suggests Muslims were persecuted specifically because they were Muslims. A lot of religious denominations were persecuted, how is this anti-Muslim rather than anti-religion? And [8] isn't a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your right that they weren't persecuted just because they were Muslim specifically but rather because they were a religious group. What do you think should be done? If it's removed I believe the same can be done about Persecution of Christians. The lead also needs to be expanded as well. AcidSnow (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller If the context was a general drive towards an atheist position and/or without special attention being given to Islam then I certainly support your removal as proposed. GregKaye 12:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Burqa ban in France belong here?[edit]

Just exploring the idea. Moorrests (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely it is a conflict of cultural principles, related to contradictions arising in migration movements. France or other Western European countries won't accept a female (or person altogether) with their face covered, clearly, either for identification certainty or human rights reasons. However, if your perception is harassment against the Muslims in France is taking place, why not add detailed reliable information on allegations of the group (or person) in question pointing to that religious persecution? Burqa is not a Muslim item though, it belongs to a certain people (Afghanistan, Arabia,...). Iñaki LL (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Burqa is only worn by Muslim women who live in every country on earth. Moorrests (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you are referring to the hijab, and not the burqa or niqab. Burqa refers to the costume worn by women in the Afghanistan / Pakistan area. By the way, it is not even traditional, it was a novelty expanding across such areas in the early or mid-20th century. But back to the point, as far as I am concerned do add your claims as detailed as possible, that is always welcome. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I am referring to Burqa. Moorrests (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to help but feel free to discredit yourself. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't live in your mind. Moorrests (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Inaki. It's ironic when people point out how some criticising Islam don't know precisely what a burqa is, but he is right: It's the one totally covering the face including the eyes, worn in Afghanistan. The idea that a Guinean, Kosovar, or Azeri would wear it is quite unlikely '''tAD''' (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Central African Republic[edit]

The Anti-balaka were and are trying to defend themselves from being forced to live under sharia law, which makes non muslims little better than slaves. Given also the 1400 year history of the abduction of slaves by muslims, it seems unjustified to call resistance to and the killing muslims genocide. Acts of defense against intended slavery can never be regarded as genocide. Any act to free yourself from slavery is justified, particularly murder of the slavers.

Given the long history of slave taking by Muslim slavers, it seems harsh to regard defensive acts by Christians as genocide. I suggest removal of this section.

Thepigdog (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Under "Current situation"[edit]

It seems to me that incidental current event don't qualify as persecution, rather news worthy, but not article worthy. I'd say some Muslims Terrorists have been persecuting Britain, US, and other places with attack bombers such as the Boston Marathon attack, I'd bet that Muslims would disown individual incident as such, that being the case then they also need to disown individual incidents as persecution because it is not, that is like saying US persecutes black people because there has been some reports where police officers have killed some black persons, it is not the case it it shouldn't be the case to try to play the victim here either. I think the whole "Current situation (1989 to present)" needs to go away.

Entire section on Tajikistan[edit]

Someone (atheist) quoted this entire article to me on a forum, as proof of "Christians killing Muslims". I skimmed it and the section on Tajikistan jumped out at me, because the country name ended in "stan". (Arabic for "land".) I don't know of any of the "stans" that are not predominantly Islamic/Muslim.

The entire section reads like a rant/tirade against the government of Tajikistan and Tajikistan President Rakhmon. It's extremely repetitive with 'the destruction of Mosques' mentioned a half dozen times alone. Women are not allowed in Mosques at least twice..... etc. etc. It's more of an attack on Tajikistan than an educational article on Persecution of Muslims.

If you look at the Wiki entry on the Country of Tajikistan - - under the section on Religion - - you find that 98% of the country's people, ARE MUSLIMS.

Sunni Islam of the Hanafi school has been officially recognized by the government since 2009. Tajikistan considers itself a secular state with a Constitution providing for freedom of religion. The Government has declared two Islamic holidays, Id Al-Fitr and Idi Qurbon, as state holidays. According to a U.S. State Department release and Pew research group, the population of Tajikistan is 98% Muslim. Approximately 87%-95% of them are Sunni and roughly 3% are Shia and roughly 7% are non-denominational Muslims. The remaining 2% of the population are followers of Russian Orthodoxy, a variety of Protestant denominations, Catholicism, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. A great majority of Muslims fast during Ramadan, although only about one third in the countryside and 10% in the cities observe daily prayer and dietary restrictions.

I read the entire Religion section on Tajikistan, then the entire "Tirade" in the Persecution of Muslims article and it appears (to me) that Tajikistan has taken a no nonsense approach to what may be seen as "excesses" in Islam, or worse still, "Radical Islam". It's a no-nonsense approach and they don't stand for ANY "militant-ism". I don't see that as "Persecution".

If 98% of the people in the country are Muslims (they are), and the government is democratically elected (it is), then what is happening in Tajikistan is what the people must want, and this "rant" section is like trying to claim White on Black racial violence, by quoting Black on Black crime statistics. It doesn't wash.

I don't know what to suggest but this section is way out of line for the intent of the article. Someone is using this article - and that particular section - as a soapbox to slam an entire Muslim country's own internal controls on Islam, just because they don't agree with it. NOT because it's actual "Persecution of Muslims".

Maybe it should be removed entirely?

Nickola Tesla (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In reading further, I can see that this section falls into the "Cherry Picking" category that has been referenced and taken to task by others including OTRS team members.

Looking at the previous issues, I see cherry picking as accurate information, true information, with verifiable links for accuracy, but intentionally presenting or supporting only one side of an issue. "Half-Truth" may also be an appropriate term for it. This is what appears to be happening within this section of the article.

I'll try my hand at an effective edit to get rid of the repetitiveness, and 'attack' tone that I see in it.

More later... Nickola Tesla (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Persecution of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[edit]

So I saw a section on the Soviet Union, admittedly a nation that did persecute all religions (most visibly in the internationalist stage under Lenin than socialism in one country under Stalin). And I literally see "However, the deportation was not religious persecution,"

Well, well, well! I may as well add a picture of a cat to the article dog and say "However, this is not a dog".

Stalin was pretty much ambivalent to religion, apart from co-opting the nationalist aspects of Russian Orthodoxy to boost morale. His actions of mass deportation also included millions of Balts, Germans and Armenians, as collective punishment for collaboration and to diffuse separatism.

It is misrepresentation of history, combined with likely partisanship to even include this in the first place, which leads to Wikipedia being a synonym for poor resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Persecution of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

India section[edit]

@Tiger7253: I have reverted Towns Hill's edits because the Dogra regime section was overweight. My objection does not apply to the India section. (In fact, I didn't notice the section earlier. My apologies to Towns Hill!)

I am not confident that communal riots in general qualify as persecution, but the 2002 Gujarat violence clearly has elements of persecution. Most of the section is devoted to that. So I have no problem with its inclusion. If you have other concerns, please discuss them here. Do not edit war!

Towns Hill, you might take this opportunity to polish the content: ensure that the citations are fully given and whether the content verifies. I wasn't happy with the way you described the Godhra train burning. A Muslim mob definitely attacked the train, but there are doubts about whether they set fire to it. The distinction wasn't clear in your text and your wording misrepresented the Dione Bunsha article. Please fix those problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus and Aegean[edit]

I believe modern history of Cyprus and how the Muslim populations there have been subject to ethnic cleansing and worse deserves a mention here. In fact, one should also add Crete and Rhodes and a few other Aegean islands from which Muslims were violently expelled from their ancestral homes and population dropped to zero today. All within 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@ This is Wikipedia bro, you can edit the article yourself to add this information. You don't need to tell someone else to do it, but I guess if you don't want to, just link me some sources and I can do it instead. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017[edit]

there is a "th" that should be "the" 2605:E000:9161:A500:F419:E755:3C4F:7ED0 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 09:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Persecution of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Persecution of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)