Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 6

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

Arrow's addition
Arrow, how is your addition relevant to antisemitism. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to Safiyya. I didn't add the original material about her. Arrow740 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant to "antisemtism". I know it is relevant to Safiyya. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If she's going to be mentioned there should be some background. Arrow740 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In antisemitism, the motivation for actions is that a person is a Jew, that there is something wrong with the Jews (just as racists think blacks are inferior because they are black).--Be happy!! (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has already taken place at Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism. Something is related to antisemitism, if a reliable source says its related to antisemitism. It's not related, if a reliable source can't be found connecting it to antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * If you make personal attacks, they will be removed.  Yahel  Guhan  04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please get an account. I strongly suggest this. Creating an account is actually very easy.Bless sins (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reza Shah?
"In Iran, Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany, making the Jewish community fearful of possible persecutions; the Iranian public at the time was anti-Jewish.[78]" Reza Shah seeked economic support from Germany in order to offset the British Empire and Russian Empire spheres of influence. He officially declared himself neutral during WWII. This statement is most likely a response to the fact that Reza Shah demanded that the exonym for Persia be changed to Iran, and appears to be speculative. It's also kind of funny, because Ayatollah Khomeini accused the Pahlavi dynasty of being Jews. Secondly, "The Iranian public was anti-Jewish" is a racist, stereotypical statement in itself. The Iranian public wasn't even represented beyond parliament in the monarchal system, so such a statement is baseless and indefensible. Thirdly, the Pahlavis were not devout Muslims, they were Pan-Iranists. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can check the source here (p.46)  Yahel   Guhan  03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the source. Firstly it says that there was no persecution of Jews, but there were only anti-Jewish articles in Persian media. Secondly the article says "anti-Jewish sentiments acquired an ethnonational character, a direct import from Germany." Thus the cause and motivation for such sentiments were Nazism, not Islam, and their character was Persian not Muslim.Bless sins (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Persian muslim. Reza Shah was a muslim. I think I'll make a couple corrections.  Yahel  Guhan  03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Khomeini, who was a Muslim, has denounced him severely. The shah represented secularism and Persian nationalism (which is why he was overthrown by the Muslims). Secondly, the book makes it clear that the motivations were nationalist and nazi, making no mention of Islam.Bless sins (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So we are going to give undue weight to Khomeini? The shah in 1979 was a different person than Reza. And secular does not mean "non-muslim." Secondly, the book does mention the "Shia religous".  Yahel  Guhan  03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I just saw the new edit; great change. I was writing that big post above while it occurred. It is much more forthright and true to the history. Good job, Yahel. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, does the source mention "antisemitism"?Bless sins (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of that game.  Yahel  Guhan  08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So I presume you admit this is irrelevant? I'm only asking you a question. Maybe this is relevant. But if you fail to answer, I have no reason for assuming so.Bless sins (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of corse it is relevant.  Yahel  Guhan  08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless the source specifically indicates antisemitism at this point in Iranian history had an Islamic character, or was related to Islam in some way other than the fact that most Iranians are Muslim, it is irrelevant to this article. Relata refero (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is easy to draw a conclusion about a particular religion if its followers commit an action.
 * For example: did you know that the Mongol empire, which commanded the killing of millions of civilians (upto 2 million alone during the Battle of Baghdad) was majority Shamanist/Buddhist? Does this mean that Buddhism or Shamanism encourages mass killings of civilians? Ofcourse not!Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

literature quote
Why was this removed? Bless sins, you said in the literature section. Where in the literature section?  Yahel  Guhan  09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the fifth paragraph:"According to Schweitzer and Perry, some literature during the tenth and eleventh century 'made Jews out to be untrustworthy, treacherous oppressors, and exploiters of Muslims'. This propaganda sometimes even resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Jews, causing causalties in Egypt. An eleventh century Moorish poem describes Jews as 'a criminal people' and blames thier 'wealth and domination' for exploiting and betrayal Muslims, worshipping the devil, and poisoning patients, food and water.[47]"
 * I even said this in my edit summary.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Muslim world during modern times
"According to Mark Cohen, Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs." If this is the case, then shouldn't this be included under Arabs and antisemitism instead? Otherwise this comes across as a synthesis of information. Unless the cases specifically involve Islam, then they shouldn't be included. Arab and Muslim are not interchangeable anymore than European and Christian are. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the part: "(and only subsequently was it "Islamized")."
 * Perhaps we should shorten this to: According to Mark Cohen antisemitism entered Muslim Arab society after having been imported by Christian Arabs.Bless sins (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Islam and Arabs are not the same thing, which is why we have Islam and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Kramer quote (again)
I am restoring the full quote here because the summary is POV, inaccurate, bias, and misses half the important detials. If we are going to summarize it, we are going to summarize it properly, leaving ideas in the order Kramer mentions them, and we will not nitpick what we like from them and enthesize that, while ignoring the parts certian users dislike.  Yahel  Guhan  23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific. I think the summary of the quote is fair. Please be sure to not give Kramer undue weight in the article (which is what happens when you place long quotes. Is there any specific thing you object to? If yes, state it. In the spirit of avoid edit wars, I'd like to work out some compromise with you.Bless sins (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is selective enthesis. "that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslim antisemites" is the last thing Kramer says, and he puts hardly any enthesis on it being "selective and distorting." Keep the sentences in order, and as I said a long time ago (and have no intention to repeat), you left out important detials of his speech, and deenthesized them because it doesen't fit your POV pushing agenda.  Yahel  Guhan  03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First things first. We can't discuss like civilized people if we make personal attacks on each other. "it doesen't fit your POV pushing agenda" is certainly a big no no. I definitely agree to not attack you and commnicate in a civil manner. Do you agree on the same?Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Any suggestion on how to fix the problem, or should I write a new summary? Or should we go with the full quote and wait for some neutral uninvolved editor to write one? Or do you want to write it properly?  Yahel  Guhan  03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote the summary in the article so you know my position. Now you write a brief summary to express your position. Then if I disagree I'll write a summary that is closer to your position. If you still disagree the you can write a summary that closer to my position...Bless sins (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel please lets use talk. The summary you added repeated many things. "Kramer states that Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes. The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews." is mentioned in another section. The rest of the summary is also mentioned. I've modified my summary to include things it previously didn't. Are there any specific things missing from my summary?Bless sins (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets discuss your summary. You left out everything that states Islam is antisemitic, basicly everything I wrote, and you took him way out of context. I'll remove some of the repeatition, and add some of what you added back, but the fact that he believes "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews" needs to stay for NPOV and accuracy.  Yahel  Guhan  03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment is not helpful. You need say specifically what I removed (quote it if necessary). "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews" is already included in the above section called "Jews".Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What you removed: "Kramer states that Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes. The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future. Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds." Basicly everything I added that he says that is not a praise of islam. In addition you misquoted and took things out of context.  Yahel  Guhan  04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahel Guhan claims I removed the above, yet I'll show that I didn't.
 * "Kramer states that Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes"
 * My version says "Islam didn't hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes"
 * "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future."
 * "the Qur'an speaks of Jews in a negative way...The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews"
 * "Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims."
 * "While traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews, it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims."
 * "There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds."
 * "use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism".
 * Once again Yahel Guhan is making allegations against me that are not true.Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, " Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future" is not the same as "the Qur'an speaks of Jews in a negative way...The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews" which leaves out the important detial about the time. Second, "While traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews, it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims" is also not the same as "'Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims". The first adds weisel words (while), and attempts to say something along "it isn't so bad, because other non-muslims had it just as bad." Third, your full quote was " Martin Kramer states that there is no doubt that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism". That is very different from "use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism", as it implies that the usage is wrong. You therefore took Kramer out of context. Kramer never makes that implication. In fact he implies that the usage is partially (though not fully) correct. Your version implies that the usage is completely incorrect. Big difference.  Yahel  Guhan ' 05:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First you claimed that I removed th entire thing. Now that I showed you that I didn't do, you are splitting hair about words. The "while" is actually taken right out of Kramer. He is the one who says that "while religious supremacism always coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, it also coloured the Islamic view of Christians and all other non-Muslims." Are you going to now argue against Kramer himself? You on the other hand are making original research conclusions. You are also duplicating the material, and it seems to be giving undue to a POV. I've already said that we need to avoid giving undue wieght to some opinions above others. Please respect WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Implication of words is important. Any writer can take sentences from two completely different parts of the same text, combine them, and the impression one gets from reading it is completely different from that intended by the author. That is called taking someone out of context, and that is what you did. You took two seperate ideas, and combined them so they hold a different meaning. In that sense, you are giving undue weight. You are the one duplicating material to give a POV; you are duplicating the material that gives the impression that islam is not antisemitic (i.e. the "people of the book" line, the "tolerance" line), which is nentioned many times in the article, and is just repeatative and POV.  Yahel  Guhan  05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have provided plenty of evidence above that I have quoted him fully. I also haven't duplicated material sourced to Kramer (you have). Per WP:UNDUE, I don't want to push one POV over the others. We should present all POVs fairly.Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You state you don't want to push one POV over others, yet your editing and writing shows something completely different.  Yahel  Guhan  06:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another unfounded claim.Bless sins (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I already proved this in my last comment.  Yahel  Guhan  06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You gave no diffs no comparisons etc. I wrote a lengthy reply to you unfounded claims before. You have thus little reason to reject my version or to make such accusations against me.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what you are arguing about? Your last comment would imply no.  Yahel  Guhan  06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear you have no more to say on the topic (though you have a lot to say on me, and what I'm arguing about). If you ever decide to get back on topic, I'd love to discuss.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know what you are talking about. "You gave no diffs no comparisons etc." Firstly, the wording is not something that requires diffs. Second, I did give comparisions. "I wrote a lengthy reply to you unfounded claims before. You have thus little reason to reject my version or to make such accusations against me" And I gave a lengthy reply in response, which you still didn't adequately respond to.  Yahel  Guhan  06:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, I responded to all your arguments. If there is any I have mistakenly not responded then please quote the concern so I have a better idea of what you're talking about.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have responded to none of my arguements. You can start by responding to my comment about context above (which I have no intention of repeating).  Yahel  Guhan  03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly I have responded to at least some of your concerns. I gave a lengthy response on 05:21, 11 March 2008. If there is any that I haven't responded to please copy and paste it so I (and others watching) can know exactly what you are talking about. If you don't provide any specific concerns, I'll assume you have none.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I responded to your "response" with my comment dated 05:39, 11 March 2008. You still havent adequately responded to my response. Explain your justification for misrepresenting Kramer's opinion, and taking him out of context.  Yahel  Guhan  06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I repeat my response:
 * "Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews" is the same as "The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews" I don't see any difference. We keep either statement.
 * "While traditional religious supremacism played a role in the Islamic view of Jews, it was same in the views regarding Christians and other non-Muslims" is the same as "Religious supremacism colored the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, as well as other non-Muslims". Infact this is closer to what Kramer says. He says "while religious supremacism always coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews, it also coloured the Islamic view of Christians and all other non-Muslims".
 * "Your version implies that the usage is completely incorrect." Where did I says it is "incorrect"? He says "Today's Muslim antisemites make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use." This is what my version says (though your version fails to point out that Kramer considers the use to be distorted).Bless sins (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "''Today's Muslim antisemites make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use" os not the same as "the selective and distorting use." That is taking things out of context.  Yahel  Guhan  06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I did place it in context, (if you read my entire sentence). I notice you didn't respond to the other points.Bless sins (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you dodn't place it in context. You added "Martin Kramer states that there is no doubt that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism." Kramer doesn't state that like that. That is two seperate ideas that you synthized in order to change the meaning of his quote. My version "fails to point out that Kramer considers the use to be distorted" because Kramer never states he considers the use to be distorted. He says it is only a partial distortion, not a full one.  Yahel  Guhan  04:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what Kramer says
 * "Today's Muslim antisemites make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use.'"
 * I don't see the word "partial" anywhere. Nor do I see the word "full" in my version. Those two words (like other things) are a figment of your imagination.
 * Regarding "today's antisemites", Kramer gives as an example:
 * "Does that mean that today's Islamic antisemitism has no grounding of Islam? No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds. Here is the mentor of Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah, pointing to the Qur'an as just such a source."
 * Thus there is no inaccuracy on my part. There is, however, selective quoting on your part.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can hop around the real issue all you want ignoring it, which is not the words "todays antisemites." The real issue here is the "selective and distorting use" wording, and you can read all of my above comments for specificly what it is; I'm not going to repeat myself again on that.  Yahel  Guhan  04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond to my last comment? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whats to respond to? Your last comment doesn't even relate to the issue.  Yahel  Guhan  04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding "selective and distorting use". Kramer says "Today's Muslim antisemites make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use." This is similar to what my version says: "Martin Kramer states that there is no doubt that a selective and distorting use of the Qur'an is effectively made by modern Muslims (such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah who point to Qur'an as the source) and feeds antisemitism." Bless sins (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also if you think that the "todays antisemites" is not an issue, then why are you reverting me on that avenue? Why not revert me only where you disagree with me and not blanket revert as you are doing now?Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It is not similar. Kramer's version says it is also, meaning it is partially selective and distorting, partially correct. Your version makes it sound not partially, but completely selective and distorting, which is an exaggeration of Kramer's view. So there is no similarity. You are blanketly reverting as well; you just did so by removing the necessary attribution agian. Besides, it is all related.  Yahel  Guhan  04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kramer never says "partially". Never. I never say "completely". Never. Do not accuse Kramer and I of saying things we don't say. Stick to the facts. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but your version implies completely, while his version implies partially.  Yahel  Guhan  04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "No" Thank you for admitting that. "imply"? If anything you are talking about subjectiveness here, that different people will interpret differently.
 * I'm reverting only the content I object to. But yourself admitted above that some of the content in question, wasn't the actual problem. If you don't have a problem with it, why revert it?Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also am reverting what I have a problem with. What part of my version related to the "todays antisemites" doe you object to?  Yahel  Guhan  04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding that I was defending my version, more than attacking yours. But now that you mention it, there are numerous problems with your version.
 * You repeat material alot. You mention "religious supremacism", amongst other things, twice, giving undue weight to the POV.
 * You also give Kramer too much space. Kramer's opinions should be mentioned but not be given more weight than others. Also you quote Kramer, without putting him in " " marks. Even if you do you risk making this article into more a quote farm than it already is (see the Sermons section).Bless sins (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned what is wrong with your version already. Misquotes are not acceptable. The article is a quote farm, because you lack the ability to properly summarize without being POV. That is why your summary is not acceptable. Religious supremacism is only mentioned once, and those issues have been fixed in Str's revision.  Yahel  Guhan  20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have proven over and over, I have made no misquotation (though you have imagined Kramer to say things like "partially" which he does not say). SO you admit that you're making this article a quote-farm. I'd like to ask you to stop such behavior. It's counter productive.
 * "Religious supremacism is only mentioned once" Yahel Guhan, there is no point in giving false statements.
 * Religious supremacism is mentioned twice in your version:

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

Martin Kramer states that "Islamic tradition did not hold up those Jews who practiced treachery against Muhammad as archetypes", that "Religious supremacism coloured the traditional Islamic view of the Jews"...
 * Bless sins (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No no no no no. As you have repeated, not proven, over and over, you claim to have not misquoted, yet anyone with common sense who reads your version and the source could easily tell it is a misquote. I think a quotefarm is better than a POV pushing misquote.  Yahel  Guhan  06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this another false statement of yours? Every time you accused me of a misquotation, I proved the opposite. Is there any occasion on which I didn't do so? And please don't remove entirely information sourced to scholarly sources.Bless sins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A basic summary of your arguements: First I raise the point that you misquoted Kramer. Next you deny it. Then I prove it, then you deny it further, and say you already responded to my concerns and "proved the opposite" without actually doing so. Stop this lying nonsense. You are the one removing information sourced to scholarly sources.  Yahel  Guhan  01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Lying nonsense" Please be WP:CIVIL. If you any specific concerns list them. I know you generally disapprove of my edits. If you have specific issues list them. I have listed specific issues (for example see my response on 04:58, 22 April 2008). Also you are removing information sourced to Norman Stillman and Jansen. What sourced information am I removing?Bless sins (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have specific issues list them I already did. I'm still waiting for you to adequately responded to them. We ahready discussed Stillman and Jansen. Do you wish to bring this dispute up again; I can always re-add Lewis' mention of the apes and pigs section, which you seem to have major objections to. What sourced info are you removing? When you misquote, you remove sourced info. Yahel  Guhan  02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I beleive I responded to all your objections. Still, if you feel that my response was not adequate, or that I missed the objections please state it so I can give a more adequate response. "We ahready discussed Stillman and Jansen" And I believe the consensus was for their inclusion (though I remember you didn't agree). "What sourced info are you removing?" Since you didn't answer this question with specific info, I'll assume there is no information that I'm removing.Bless sins (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You responded to basicly nothing, rather you claimed to respond without actually doing so. There most certianly were objections to Stillman and Jansen. I just have no intention of repeating them. I also have no intention of repeating what you removed and misquoted, as I have clarified that several times already.  Yahel  Guhan  04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't be bother to state your own objections then I can't be bothered with guessing what's in your mind. If you state a concern, I'll respond to it. If I've already responded to it, I'll repeat my response, again and again, until we reach consensus. But if you don't state your concerns then please don't expect me to guess them.Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you re-read the discussion, and figure out what you haven't responded to yet. I'm sick and tired of repeating myself. But since this is going nowhere, why don't we try something different. I made it clear my issue was giving undue weight to half of Kramer's view by taking him out of context, while ignoring his other views. So, why don't you make this easier, and write a new neutral summary which does not contain the words "The selective and distorting use" in the first sentence, nor take him out of context.  Yahel  Guhan  22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll write a new summary that doesn't start with the words "The selective and distorting use" (even though I see this as pointless). "while ignoring his other views." Unless you tell me which views I'm ignoring, I really can't help. I'm sorry, but I'm not a psychic, I can't read minds. If you want me to know something, you have to type it out here. Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The new lead is an improvement, however you left out some important detials, which I added back in. The part about "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future." and "There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds". besides, he says it is also a selective and distorting use, not completely, as your new version still implied.  Yahel  Guhan  15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as can be seen from your edit and edit summary, you "mass revert[ed]" me. You are again repeating stuff, and you removed the "distortion" section altogether. You also removed the "tolerance for Jews" section.
 * "however you left out some important detials," No I didn't.
 * "The Qur'an includes verses which attest to the Prophet's amicable relations with Jews, and speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their history and future." is included as "The Qur'an also attests to Muhammad's amicable relations with Jews" and "the Qur'an speaks of Jews in a negative way".
 * "There is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds" is still in my version but very differently because of your requirement ' a new summary that doesn't start with the words "The selective and distorting use" '.

I noticed you added a paragraph (sourced to Lewis). You can give the full context of the paragraph, because from what I recall it is not blaming Islam for antisemitism. And from what I recall it said "There is little sign of any deep rooted emotional hostility directed against Jews - or for that matter any other other group - such as the antisemitism of the Christian world. There are, however, unambiguously negative attitudes."Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When did I say it was "specificly" blaming Islam for antisemitism?  Yahel  Guhan  15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...you didn't. I just thought that because you put in something in this article it had to do with Islam and antisemitism, and not Christianity and antisemitism. Since the Lewis quote is talking about antisemitism in the Christian world, and saying such  emotional hostility didn't exist in the Islam, I'm removing the quote as irrelevant.Bless sins (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Attribution
Phrases like "scholars of islam" and "there is nothing within Islam that can be considered antisemitic" is very POV, especially since it is not a united opinion. Rather, for the purpose of NPOV, it is necessary to attribute here.  Yahel  Guhan  03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Is there a contradiction? Is there any scholar on earth who says that these statements are false? "Scholars of Islam" is used because there are multiple scholars who say this.Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It contradicts Schweitzer and Perry's statement: "there is an antisemitic infrastructure extant in Islam." And "scholars of Islam" is used because you like that wording, because it supports your belief. No other reason.  Yahel   Guhan  04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do S and P provide examples of "refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" in Muslim theology? Have you even read S & P (I have)?Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A diatribe is a denunciation. Therefore any antisemitism is an anti-jewish diatribe, and therefore it is a POV (which unsuprisingly, you still havent verified with the full quote).  Yahel  Guhan  05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No criticism/refutation of Judaism is not antisemitism, (though "ferocious" criticism may well be).Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relevance?  Yahel  Guhan  05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One word sentences don't convey much. If you are asking me a question, please state it clearly. I don't understand what the above is asking.Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh. What is the relevance of your last comment?  Yahel  Guhan  05:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to Lewis' comments which are in question here.Bless sins (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How so?  Yahel  Guhan  20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lewis talks of "refutations of Judaism" and "ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" does he not? That's how the two are relevant.Bless sins (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The page is not avaliable in google books, and you have yet to provide a full quote. Second, even so, that doesn't change the fact that it is a single POV that is obviously disputable.  Yahel  Guhan  19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to get the book from the library and only then I can give you the quote. Unless you believe I am misquoting Lewis (but you can't since you haven't read the book), I'm not obliged to provide a quote.Bless sins (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was refering to Lewis' quote.  Yahel  Guhan  22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, Schweitzer and Perry obviously disagree with Lewis and Chanes on this point, and the vague "scholars of Islam" violates both WP:V and WP:NPOV. Attribute claims to the people who make them. Please don't do this again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding "scholars on Islam", S & P do not disagree with the conclusions presented there, at least I have not seen any evidence of them refuting "The Qur'an, like Judaism, orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism. The Qur'an also rejects the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society. The Qur'an does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original message - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise." Bless sins (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So the part "that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" wasn't really written by Lewis then, was it? As your quote would prove, he never says that.  Yahel  Guhan  22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, name the people who provide opinions. If you find a dozen who say the same thing, then you wouldn't need to, but with just two, you obviously do. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per what clause of WP:V? Also, two is not enough but twelve ("dozen") is. Where is the line drawn?Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The line is drawn by common sense. Name your sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see this "common sense" in any policy. Infact, I see that in most of wikipedia one source is often enough in making something a fact. The two sources are Lewis and Chanes.Bless sins (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So name them. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg is (of course) right.
 * Just write : "according to ..., bla bla bla".
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain how prohibiting Jews from selling alcohol is antisemitic? Is prohibiting them from selling drugs also antisemitic?Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jews, unlike muslims, are not banned from drinking alcohol according to their religion, thus banning them from doing so is a limitation on their personal freedom, same as banning the study of the Qur'an or adopting Arab names. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Jews are not explicitly banned by the Torah from sniffing marijuana. Many anarchists claim that this is a limit on their personal freedom. Is prohibiting Jews from doing marijuana also antisemitism?Bless sins (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I'm not playing this game. The fact that egyptians (who are muslims) spied for the axis/nazis against the allied powers, and hoped for a nazi victory in World War II is very relevant. It is obviously antisemitic, as the nazis were antisemitic. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you refuse to follow wikipedia's rules on original research? Aren't you the one who insisted upon high standards . I don't want to have to argue again repeatedly that just because Muslims are connected to something, it means Islam is involved. Please find reliable sources connecting this to Islam and antisemitism, and I'll have no problem including it.Bless sins (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Muslims are connected does mean Islam is involved. Muslims follow Islam. This information is no less relevant than the stuff about the "golden age in spain" stuff, which in no way relates to antisemitism. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Muslims follow Islam" Then you don't seem to know too much about Muslims. When Muslims drink alcohol, are they following Islam? Ofcourse not. Some Muslims will follow Islam, but most do what they desire. Infact, Egypt is not an Islamic republic, or atleast wasn't during world war II.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. Muslims following Islam means they believe in the teachings of Islam, and therefore they are muslims. If they don't, they are not. Even if they don't follow every single rule all the time, they can still be a follower of Islam, and therefore a muslim. Egypt was a territory occupied by the british during WWII, however, the Egyptians were still muslims. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 05:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous! Muslims today use cellphones, are you going to now create an article called "Islam and cellphones"? Muslims use cars, will you create an article called "Islam and cars"? How far will you go?
 * Oh btw, you source doesn't even say that Egypt is a Muslim country. In order to make the claim you need another source, and thus you're violating WP:SYNTH. If you don't ahve any argument to support yourself, I'll remove the original research.Bless sins (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Create those articles if you wish. I'm not, because I have more important things to do than write an article on those topics, but if someone else wanted to, I would not object.
 * This isn't about Egypt (the country). It is about Egyptians (the people who happen to live within the country). There is a difference. Get your facts straight. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 05:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your source above, doesn't call Egyptians as "Muslims". If it does, you must provide the quote, because I can't see that. Finally, until such articles are created it is to be assumed that the wikipedia doesn't follow such absurd logic.Bless sins (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You need a source to believe that the majority of Egyptians in the 1940's are muslims! How rediculous, something this obvious doesn not need a source. "until such articles are created" First of all, we don't assume. Missing articles doesn't warrent changes to this article. If it is that abusrd, create the articles yourself. I don't follow your strange logic here.  YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 05:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I need a source. Please provide one. "I don't follow your strange logic here." It is your logic that is strange here. Anyways, provide the source, and then things will become clear to you.Bless sins (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an and Anti-Semitism!??
I have put a dispute tag under the Qur'an section. Please check Qur’an 9:97 The Arabs are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger. Note some translators have changed "Arabs" to "The Arabs of the Desert". I know enough Arabic to understand the original Arabic also. «اَلاعَرْابُ اَشدَّ كُفراً وَ نفاقاً وَ اَجْدَرُ اَلاَّ يّعْلَمُوا حُدُودَ ما اَنزَْلَ اللهُ» There is no "Desert Arabs". It just says "Al-'Araab" (The Arabs). Note you will not find such a harsh statement against Jews in the Qur'an. Yet there are verses in the Qur'an to show that Jews were chosen above other nation (or at least in a specific time). So I think the mention of the Qur'an should be taken out of this article. Or at least the above verse be mentioned. The Qur'an from my viewpoint is not meant to be anti anything. Indeed, the Qur'an says that the person who is superior is the one that is the most pious (no matter of what background). So piety defines superiority and ill-action defines inferiority. Irregardless of the background of the person, that is the Qur'ans viewpoint. Also the Qur'an recognizes Judaism and Christianity as legitimate paths. So the Qur'an is not anti anything. In fact most of the prophets mentioned in the Qur'an and praised in it, are Jewish. And Jews are mentioned to be favored by God (either at one time or maybe now, but it does mention favored). The Qur'an like any religious book can be read many different ways (depending on the maturity of the person). But inherently, the Qur'an can criticize Jews who worshipped the calf while mentioning Jews that worshipped God in the positive light. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the disputed tag because the tag in the lead covers the quran section, so it is repeatitive. You seem to base your comments on your own Original research. There are scholars who dispute your thesis, so it is included in the article.  Yahel  Guhan  02:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should find 2nd sources ! None of us has the right to use 1st sources (ie, the Qur'an) on such issues because we don't know all that is written in that book what is considered relevant or not, how it evolved etc.
 * In the Torah and in the Evangiles, as well as in Marxism and Liberalism, there are terrible things too for the eyes of 21th century people.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You misquote the Koran there. Sura [9.97] "The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise."

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

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

al-Husayni and antisemitism
Please check Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. There is no consensus between references that al-Husayni was motivated by antisemitism. Imad marie (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * yes he was. The majority of sources make it clear that they think he was motivated by antisemitism, and that is enough to warrent its inclusion here. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quoting the following from User:Ceedjee:


 * Katz and Pearlman consider he was anti-semite
 * Elpeleg and Mattar that he was mainly nationalist while the first do not deny he was aware of the Shoah tragedy and the consequences of his own action on this.
 * In his last book, Morris also argues he was anti-semite (but do not deny nationalism fight)
 * Zertal thinks he was more a fanatic than an antisemite and that this is exagerated for political reasons
 * This different point of view are summarized by the Frecnh jouranlist Rouleaux but based only on Elpeleg and Mattar's works.
 * I think we have a good list of wp:rs sources to conclude there is a debate to see why he was so virulently anti-Zionist.


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


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

Al-Husayni in Bosnia
Yahel, how did you interpret my edit as "censorship"? Why is "Al-Husayni visiting Bosnia and recruiting troops against Yugoslavia" related to "Islam and antisemitism"? Imad marie (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would like an explanation. Bosniaks and the Serbs (constituting the dominant party in Yugoslavia) have had historic rivalries. This has little to do with antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is "The Black Book of Bosnia by Nader Mousavizadeh, (Editor), Basic Books, New York, 1996" a reliable source?
 * The other source lists "hatred of both Zionism and British imperialism" and "his illusions that the Axis powers would guarantee the right of Arab national self-determination" alongside antisemitic motivations. Finally the source notes that Al-Husayni being "a genocidal antisemite in the service of Nazi Germany" is an "allegation", something that you don't in your version.Bless sins (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I think this conclusion is WP:OR. 1) al-Husayni recruited those troops to fight the Yugoslavs not to join the Nazis, 2)even if those troops joined the Nazi's their war was not against the Jews. 3) allying with the Nazi's does not mean you are anti-Semitic, do you call the Japanese anti-Semitics? Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Imad marie and Bless sins. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Imad's points:
 * "al-Husayni recruited those troops to fight the Yugoslavs not to join the Nazis," - there are no Yugoslavs to fight. He recruited the troops to help the NaziGerman war effort in general.
 * "their war was not against the Jews" - their war to a great extent was against the Jews. Hitler had to main objectives: conquer Lebensraum in the east and exterminate the Jews. When he saw that the first would fail he devoted more and more energy towards the second. It is another matter how far this objective can be ascribed to other agents involved.
 * "allying with the Nazi's (sic!) does not mean you are anti-Semitic, do you call the Japanese anti-Semitics?" That is correct: allying yourself to the Nazis does not NECESSARILY make you an anti-semite. However, how was it that Hussein entered into that alliance? Was there a common enemy? Yes, there was: it was on the one hand the British but at least equally important the Jews.
 * My take is: Hussein was an Islamic antisemite who collaborated with NaziGermany. His actions can be very broadly be mentioned in this article. But only very broadly. Str1977 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Colloboration happened for many reasons (such as desire for independence, as was the case with the Indische Legion), antisemitism being only one of them.Bless sins (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not neccessarily but if some collaborator is reported as also being an antisemite, this may be noted in relation to other things as well as mentioned in reliable sources. It shouldn't be overdone but it sure can be mentioned. Trying to make Mr Shamir an antisemite is nonsensical. Str1977 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "if some collaborator is reported as also being an antisemite" then we include him. If some non-collaborator has been reported as antisemite, we include him too.
 * "Trying to make Mr Shamir an antisemite is nonsensical." Just goes to show you what users try to cook up in violation of WP:NOR.Bless sins (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BS, it was you brought up Shamir, hence you are the user who did "cook up (something) in violation of WP:NOR." Str1977 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you read my full edit, instead of taking me out of context, you will realize that I'm opposed to considering Shamir as an antisemite (just as I'm opposed to consider many others without sufficient reliable sources).Bless sins (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that there was collaboration for opportunistic or nationalistic purposes. See Breton nationalism and World War II for example. There was a fuzzy line between collaboration and antisemitism. Bless Sins illustrated this with a colourful example, but it ventured into sensitive territory. Not necessary to pursue this. Stick to what the sources say. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is actually no line at all. Collaboration is an act, antisemtism a view. The latter can be the motive for the former (or one motive among many).
 * In the mufti's case the prominence of antisemitism is established at least as a claim. Str1977 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See talk ... where?
Where is this edit expained on talk? Str1977 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right over here.Bless sins (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Large reverts
Yahel Guhan, can you explain yourself when you make such large reverts? Essentially you're reverting longstanding material. You're free to do that, but you have explain yourself, either before or after reverting. Bless sins (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Basicly you censored out half of my additions with little, and very poor justification. That is why I reverted you. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't "censor" anything. I re-included them, but organized them. Also, some of your additions were OR, as was determined by our discussions above, so I removed them. If you want to restart the discussion, you are welcome to. But if you don't, then you shouldn't bring that content in.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My version is 82,422 bytes. Your version was 80,973 bytes. Thus you removed content (censorship). Basic summary of your edits: You removed information that said according to Laqueur, muhammad killed Jews (sourced, and without explaining yourself), you censored out Lewis' mention of the apes and pigs, even though you never had consensus to do so. You misquote and censor out Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry, you censor out the quran verses, and you again misquote Kramer. You only made one helpful edit, summarizing Laqueur in the lead section, and that needed fixing. Thus censorship. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 05:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if my version was 82,421 bytes, I'd be technically "remov[ing] content (censorship)". Also, its not censorship to remove original research.
 * "Laqueur, muhammad killed Jews (sourced, and without explaining yourself)," Actually this is mentioned in Islam_and_Anti-Semitism. Muhammad also married a Jewish woman, but that is also not in the lead. We can't describe all his interactions with Jews in the lead, can we?
 * "you censored out Lewis' mention of the apes and pigs, even though you never had consensus to do so". The discussion above concluded that Lewis is never accusing the Qur'an of antisemitism. Infact, he said that Muslim attitudes are not similar to antisemitic attitudes found amongst the Christians.
 * "You misquote and censor out Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry" How so?
 * "you censor out the quran verses" Where? Also, large Qur'an quotes are inappropriate for this article, especially if we have scholars saying pretty much the same thing.
 * "you again misquote Kramer" How so?
 * All you have said in your comments is "censorship" and "misquote" . You haven't bothered to explain yourself one bit.Bless sins (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not censorship to remove original research only if it actually is original research. But you have streached the definition of original research so many times to remove sourced content you don't like, that it is clear to me your goal is censorship, rahter than removing original research.
 * Two words won't kill anything, and it isn't specific (it doesn't describe which jews he killed, or whom).
 * Accusing or not, he is discussing the topic. His comment is definently directly relevant, even if it doesn't specificly state whether or not he thinks the verses are antisemitic.
 * For one, Schweitzer and Perry never say anything like "point out Qur'anic criticisms of some Jews for taking usury and consuming people's wealth, which was prohibited for them." That is a misquote.
 * You censored: "References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative. The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah," and "The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty"; in the form of the poll jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." Yet ordinarily, "the Jews' could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad. There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews" And quran verse listings are necessary not to be hidden. None are that large. They are improtant content. The scholars aren't saying the same things. They each point to different verses to make their points, and do not say the same things.
 * I told you already with Kramer. Kramer doesn't say muslim antisemites selectively distort the quran, as your version implies. He states it is partially correct, partially distorted. Big difference. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 05:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "it doesn't describe which jews he killed, or whom" Exactly my point. Some Jews were killed, while others' lives were spared. Further Muhammad even married two. The lead must be short and concise.
 * "Accusing or not, he is discussing the topic" He is discussing Christian antisemitism. This article is about Islam and antisemitism.
 * "That is a misquote." If you're going to allege that, then you must provide the full quote to support your point.
 * "Kramer doesn't say muslim antisemites selectively distort the quran". Kramer says "Today's Muslim antisemites make ... a selective and distorting use [of the Qur'an]."Bless sins (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The following is my response to Yahel's long accusation of "censoring" me.
 * "[Yahel:] You censored: 'References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative."
 * My version: "Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that there are mostly negative references to Jews in the Qur'an and Hadith."
 * "[Yahel:]The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah,'"
 * My version: "According to Schweitzer and Perry, it says that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah,"
 * "[Yahel:]In his 'wrath' God has 'cursed' the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are 'infidels.'"
 * My version: "In another form of punishment mentioned in the Qur'an, God curses the Jews as apes and swine and idol worshipers because of their disbelief"
 * "[Yahel:]Yet ordinarily, 'the Jews' could not be said to have 'killed' Muhammad."
 * Comment: Belongs on the section on Muhammad.
 * "[Yahel:]There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and 'virtuous Hebrews' is not translated into 'virtuous Muslims' in contrast to the 'stiff-necked, criminal Jews'"
 * My version: "According to Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry, the Jewish Bible was not incorporated in the Islamic text ... and "virtuous Muslims" are not contrasted with "stiff-necked, criminal Jews"."
 * Thus, the material was not censored at all, but adapted to the format of the article.Bless sins (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, and the fact that some jews were killed by Muhammad needs to be mentioned, preferably in the lead. 2. Then you haven't read the quote. He is obviously talking about the qur'an. Apes and pigs is an islamic thing. 3. What part should I quote? He says nothing even remotely similar to what you wrote. You need to provide the quote if you are going to insist they say something even remotely like what you wrote. 4. Does not. Stop selectively misquoting and repeating yourself. We have already been through this, and I have no intention of repeating myself. 5. you forgot the other parts I was refering to. You only responded to half of the evidence of censorship. YahelGuhan ( talk ) 06:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Then you'll need multiple (say atleast 4) sources to show that it is notable enough.
 * 2. Please post the quote. From what I see, he talks about Christian antisemitism. Here is a quote: "On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims is not one of hate or fear or envy, but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways..."
 * There is no mention of antisemitism on the part of Islam. Muslims are accused of "contempt", which Lewis thinks is not antisemitic (which he seems to think is "hate", "fear", and "envy").
 * 3. The full quote please.
 * 4. I have quoted Kramer directly from the website for you. You have not. "I have no intention of repeating myself" you don't have to - you're free to leave this article whenever you want.
 * 5. Which other parts? Also, I responded to your evidence in detail, while you are simply making accusation not even trying to critically examine the evidence presented.Bless sins (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. One is enough, and there are multiple. You do not get to put 4 source minimum on for inclusion, for that is an attempt to censor his views, especially considering it is already attributed. Besides, no policy requires 4 scholars to agree for inclusion.
 * 2. I already did. I'm not repeating it.
 * 3. You wrote it, you quote it. Or are you disputing my wording, in which case you need to specify exactly which part you dispute. From what I see, you are censoring my wording, and replacing it with wording you made up.
 * 4. You have it backwords. I (not you) have quoted Kramer directly from the website for you. You have not.
 * 5. you never responded to "The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty"; in the form of the poll jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels". You just censored that out. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 03:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. You don't seem to understand the point of the lead. Just because one scholar has said something doesn't mean it should be in the lead. If that was the case, then the entire article could be placed in the lead. Items should be placed in the lead if they are notable (or repeatedly mentioned by scholars).
 * 2. I don't see it. Unless you copy and past (which require only a Ctrl+c, highlight, and Ctrl+v), I won't know what your argument is. I've explained all my arguments, and will continue to do so. I expect the same from you.
 * 3. You claimed that I removed the information sourced to the quote. I said no. If you want to show that you need to provide the entire quote from S and P.
 * 4. In which comment of yours did you quote Kramer? I quoted Kramer in my post on 23:52, 24 June 2008. I'll quote him again: Kramer says "Today's Muslim antisemites make ... a selective and distorting use [of the Qur'an]." yet you seem to be disputing this (you said "Kramer doesn't say muslim antisemites selectively distort the quran")
 * 5. I'll include your views in my edits.Bless sins (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. you are playing your games again. A lead is a summary, and two words does not change that.

2. Look better. I'm not wasting my time repeating myself to satisfy your inability to understand basic english.

3. I calimed that you distorted, and added things that weren't there, not removed information. But just to make it obvious, here is the relevant part you keep distorting by making changes which were never said:
 * "The Koran requires their "abasement and poverty"; abasement took the form of the poll tax and the humiliating ceremoney in which it was paid; in his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshippers because they are "infidels." The Hadith (tradition, law, legend) is even more scathing in attacking the Jews: They are debased, cursed, anathematized forever by God and so can never repent and be forgiven; they are cheats and traitors; defiant and stubbornl they killed the prophets; they are liars who falsify scripture and take bribes; as infidels they are rutually unclean, a foul odor emanating from them-such is the image of the Jew in classical Islam, degraded and malevolent."

4.You distort Kramer by leaving out the other part. I'm not repeating my arguement. YahelGuhan ( talk ) 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. It is a summary of content below. BUt if the content doesn't exist below in sufficient detail, the lead cna't be summarizing it (because you can't summarize what doesn't exist, can you?).
 * 2. So you don't want to respond? Ok.
 * 3. First of all, in your quote, I don't see any allegation of antisemitism, thus you need provide the full context, including where the allegation to antisemitism is made. Secondly, I ahve included all of that in my edits. Just to recap:
 * "The Qur'an, the authors write, requires their abasement through the poll tax"
 * "God curses the Jews as apes and swine and idol worshipers because of their disbelief"
 * Regarding the hadith: I have that quote verbatim in my version.
 * 4. What "other part" are you talking about?
 * Regards, Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The content shows enough detial to prove it happened. 2. I did respond, but I'm not going to repeat myself for you. 3. Remember the book title arguement? (It was your arguement after all.) There is your so-called "allegation." You forgot the most important arguement: The qur'an attacks jews, which you haven't included. 4. Sorry. Not repeating myself. YahelGuhan ( talk ) 06:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. You will have to show where the content gives this detail.
 * 2 and 4. You consistently say "I won't repeat myself". Isn't that repeating? Infact, that is repeating that gets us nowhere. If you truly had an argument to make you'd make it.
 * 3. Yeah. The material isn't in the book. It is in the appendix of it. Please give the full quote.
 * Bless sins (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I already did.
 * 2) If you truly had an arguement, than you would make it, instead of reverting and resorting to your tipical stalling technique of reverting me and repeating yourself.
 * 3) It is in the book, as I already showed you. Appendix is part of the book. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Errors.
First of all, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are ALL Semetic religions. Therefore, the term "anti-semitism" refers to the position of being against any of the three religions. To say that a Muslim is antisemetic is contradictory. Most people associate the term to being strictly against Jews, but it really applies to all three.

To avoid an arguement over semantics(please, please don't start one) and less typing, I'll use the term "antisemitism" to refer to animosity against Jews ONLY from now on.

Second, a muslim who is antisemetic is contradictory to what they're taught. Remember, Muslims are taught that Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob(later Israel) are all messengers of God, and are therefore given praise of peace. It is also said that Ishmael was the ancestor of most Arabs today, linking them ancestorally to the Jews through Abraham.

Also, any idea that Muslims are intolerant of other religions is certainly exaggerated. This translation from the Sunnah will clear things up: "One who kills a non-Muslim person under protection (Arabic: dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise." Also: "Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person under protection, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection." Islam is intolerant of FALSE ideas, but not of the PEOPLE who follow them.

This final translation should clear up ANY misconceptions about animosity towards the other two semetic religions: "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. " 002.062

~The preceding two paragraphs were translations and ideas from the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts.

The one thing people must remember is that most of the Muslim nations of the Middle East are against the state* of Israel, not the Jews in general nor the civilians inhabiting there either. They are against the existence of Israel because the nation of Israel was made from acquisition of ARAB land. People argue that the land used to belong to the Jews, but such an argument is tantamount to claiming the Native Americans should reclaim land from the United States and banish Americans to make room for a new Native American nation. Many Americans would be furious, and undoubtedly some would vow to war against this nation for the rest of their lives. In reality, the Middle Eastern nations would become extremely docile, maybe even end their animosity towards Israel, if Israel merely shrank to its 1947 borders, as opposed to wiped off the map. The truth is the reestablishment of a sovereign Palestinian nation would establish an era of peace and stability to the region.


 * notice that I use "state" to refer to a sovereign entity.

Although my last point is debatable, the preceding arguments are based in researched, provable FACT. My main point is that any antisemetic aspect of Islam is an oxymoron, because antisemetism refers to antagonism to Judaism, Christianity, AND Islam, so the continued existence of this wiki page is hypocritical the purpose of wikipedia(to be an unbiased encyclopedic source for the masses to be able to refer to, the source of information being factual and reliable).

Q.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.226.176 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Few notes
A few notes:
 * Please don't duplicate material. Once its covered in one art of the article it need not be repeated again (unless there is relevance).
 * Please don't introduce point format. Point forms are usually used when issues are definite. Life under Muslim rules was anything but consistent, and nothing (including the rights the Jews enjoyed) was set in stone. Points were used in Islam_and_antisemitism section also, but they were removed.
 * The lead needs to be summarized.Bless sins (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't duplicate material like you have been doing for the last year or so?
 * About your lead. There is nothing wrong with summary, if and only if both sides are summarized equally. That means no undue weight given to the view that islam/muslims are/had not been antisemitic, as your lead did. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You imagine that there are two sides, I don't see them. Secondly, if you make any allegation, you have to substantiate it by giving examples, as you've failed to do above.Bless sins (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There most certianly are two sides. There is the islam is antisemitic side and the islam is not antisemitic side. You did not represent the first fairly. You know perfectly well what you did, what your agenda was, and I do not have to point it out for you. It should be obvious, especially since you've been doing it for the last year, and 90% of your editing on wikipedia follows it. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of having an "agenda". If you claim 90% of editing follows this "agenda", you'll have to prove it.Bless sins (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RS
Is this a reliable source? Because it is, then it says negative things about Israel too.Bless sins (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't that be a reliable source? Celarnor Talk to me  05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The author doesn't seem to have too many qualifications that would render him reliable. It is also not published by a mainstream newspaper (like Ha'aretz, or BBC).Bless sins (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was published in The New Yorker, which probably has a higher editorial standards than either Ha'aretz or the BBC. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Large revert
Jayjg can you please explain your revert. You have not been an active part of the discussion for some time, and thus I'd like you to respond to my concerns above before reverting me.Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg you reverted me again. Can you please explain yourself this time.Bless sins (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Large changes to the article
Bless sins, you've just made some massive changes to the article, with no apparent explanation. Could you please go through the changes you are proposing here, describing each one, so we can see if they add or detract from the quality of the article? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg I've only restored a previous version. As anyone can see, I've made these changes before. Most of the changes (except those to the lead) are part of the longstanding version. Since you request an explanation, I'll give one for the changes that I've begun to make recently:
 * In the lead, I've summarized the previous one. this is because the previous was was quite large. Ofcoruse by summarizing, it means the size of it in bytes has gone down.
 * Changes to section in the Qur'an. I only restored the longstanding version. If you want the new version of the section, please justify it. I have justified myself above in my discussion with yahel guhan. (see for example this version, which is Yahel Guhan's: there is no dispute over most of the section, except for the "Distortion" subsection).
 * Pre-modern section: I moved the stuff about literature into the "Literature" section from "Life under Muslim rules". I also eliminated point form in that section and wrote in paragraph form as that is good style (there used to be a point form list in the Qur'an section explaining why Islamic theology was not antisemitic; i put it in paragraph form some time ago too).
 * Modern section: I removed original research from the Egypt section (I've explained above why it was original research, and Yahel seemed to have stopped objecting against my explanations). I removed a deleted image (honestly Jayjg, what's wrong with that?). I also made minor edits: Pogroms -> pogroms, wikilink Arab nationalism, Encyclopedia -> Encyclopeadia. I'm not sure why Jayjg reverted those edits either.Bless sins (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BS, that's not a "previous version", that's a complete re-write, and those are a huge number of changes, very briefly described. Let's work through them one at a time. Which material in the Egypt section do you think is original research, and why? By the way, if you want to make any minor copyediting changes (e.g. Pogroms -> pogroms) while we are discussing this, please feel free to do so, I won't object. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your reversion is equally huge. I'll tel you what: let's discuss them one at a time. In the meantime let's also make minor improvements. Finally, as for the status of the article, let is stay at the longstanding version. this essentially boils down to keeping your version of the lead, Egypt section and "Life under Muslim rule", while my version of the "Qur'an" section. It also appears like reasonable compromise to avert an edit war while discussion is happening. (BTW, such a sol'n worked between Yahel and I previously).Bless sins (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BS, it's quite astonishing that you would completely re-write this article, without any explanation, and then claim that my revert was "equally huge". Start with the Egypt section; explain where the OR is. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't "completely re-write" anything but the lead. Do you agree with my proposal (please respond)? In that case I won't re-wrtie the lead etc. until we are both agreed upon it. And yes, your revert, is equally as huge as my revert - you revert the exact same edits that I revert.Bless sins (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh BTW, I did explain myself in numerous sections above. I have even explained myself in this section. You Jayjg have not (so far).Bless sins (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I agreed to look at the changes one section at at time. You're the one trying to do a complete re-write; you need to explain why. Let's talk about the Egypt section. Which parts do you think are OR, and what would you like to change? Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I explained myself on the Egypt section a looong time ago. (see ). You are continuously thwarting the question. I'll repeat it: as for the status of the article, let is stay at the longstanding version. this essentially boils down to keeping your version of the lead, Egypt section and "Life under Muslim rule", while my version of the "Qur'an" section. It also appears like reasonable compromise to avert an edit war while discussion is happening.
 * Do you agree?
 * Also, you haven't responded to the fact that the Qur'an section I'm reverting is a longstanding version.Bless sins (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi BS. Your massive changes to the Qur'an section cannot be a "longstanding version", since the current version has been there for at least a month. Now, let's start discussing the Egypt changes, and stop wasting time trying to justify a huge re-write that has not been explained or justified. I'll be responding on the topic of the proposed Egypt changes in the next section, and will not be discussing anything further here. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Qur'an section has been relatively static. My version actually corresponds with this version of Yahel's more than it corresponds with your version. Thus, it is you who are making enormous changes to the section. You need to justify your changes. I will certainly retain the longstanding version until consensus is worked out. And if you respect longstanding changes, like you claim you do, you shouldn't hinder me from doing so. I don't know why you would chose to edit war, and not temporarily compromise, when it is offered to you.Bless sins (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Egypt section - OR?
Bless sins, please explain which parts of the Egypt section are OR, in your view, and what you would like to change about them. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd only look carefully, this has been discussed already: Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism. Like I said, I've already justified myself, you haven't. You haven't, so far, justified a single edit of yours.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't understand that ancient conversation, which in any event has been archived by a bot now. Please explain that change here. And of course I explained why I reverted your complete re-write, above. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schweitzer266" :
 * Frederick M. Schweitzer, Marvin Perry., Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312165617, p.266.
 * Frederick M. Schweitzer, Marvin Perry. Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312165617, p.266-267
 * "Rosenblatt" :
 * Pinson; Rosenblatt (1946), pg. 112-119
 * According to Pinson, Rosenblatt and F.E. Peters, they also began to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him (despite having signed a peace treaty ). F.E.Peters(2003), p.194

MEMRI quote
Please explain why a quote cited to not one, but two Relaibel sources can be removed? CENSEI (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * uhh... MEMRI's not reliable for anything?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The RS noticeboard would disagree. CENSEI (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They can't be that stupid. Yigal Carmon (sp?) was an IDF intelligence officer for 20 years and their translations are, uhm, traif. You have a link to an RS noticeboard discussion that backed memri i'd like to see it. Those folks will need to have a little more background info provided. Jonah Goldberg? Now i know you're having a laugh?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think of memri, a source of which I've never previously heard, the National Review is surely reliable, and its words are capable of sourcing the entire statement. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jonah Goldberg is an opinion columnist who is not an arabic speaker and as an AEI grad wouldn't ever be considered a reliable source on these matters (NRO is generally unreliable on these issues; it's frequently quoted for its opinions on issues because it has some influence, but it is never RS for matters of fact).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show the RS discussion which has decided that both MEMRI and Goldberg are unreliable. I've attributed the sources, now they're stated as opinions. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you dispute that the guy said this? I could just as easily say "_____ is a far-left periodical" and "_____ is a member of _____", but that's hardly a reasonable discussion.  Just remember that the right side of the political spectrum are correct some of the time as well.  Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use any partisan group (far left, far right i don't care.) Remember that the "right" is correct some of the time? (You seem to be presuming something about my politics that is irrelevant here). Unreliable is unreliable -- and I would toss out every attribution of matters of fact to partisan groups, left or right, from wikipedia if i could. In this specific instance -- Goldberg, a partisan hack who doesn't speak arabic, is getting his info from memri. So it's important to assess Memri -- a partisan group that has repeatedly been accused of false translations, misleading translations, decontextualized translations etc... in service of a political cause. They might even have gotten this one right (though I can't find any mention that doesn't lead back to the partisans of this rather inflammatory statement by a preacher who was appointed by the secular leader of Egypt, who has a peace deal with israel and who gets rather uncomfortable when his subject's anti-Jewish feelings get stirred up as a consequence, and oh, never mind). But here's a small article from Der Spiegel (non-partisan, generally) saying that Tantawi had called for preachers to STOP refering to Jews as descended from Apes and Pigs at around that time (which far more fits with his role as serving mubarak's interests; mubarak has as much to fear from the extremist end of Islam than the Israeli's do, and he ruthlessly controls such rhetoric).. At any rate, i've gone and jumped through a ridiculous hoop so we can call a spade a spade on these two unreliable sources. Here .Bali ultimate (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

too much focus on Spain and general sugar-coating
I think there should be more elaboration of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world before European influences are alleged to somehow have brought it on. This article has a huge part on Spain, but little focus on other countries, where Jews were harshly persecuted. Examples include:

In Libya, then known as Tripolitania, Jews were considered as property of their Arab masters, who would bequeath the Jews to their heirs upon death.

Writing in 19th century Syria, one Jew lamented, "When a Jew walked among them [the Muslims] in the market, one would throw a stone at him in order to kill him, another would pull his beard, yet another spit on his face He became the symbol of abuse."

In the 12th century, Egyptian Jews were the object of anti-dhimmi riots so successful that one observer noted the Jewish population had "greatly declined" in their wake.

In 1884, the Sultan of Morocco said Jews had to work on Shabbat, could only "clean foul places and latrines," had to part with merchandise at half-price and accept counterfeit coinage, to name a few of the provisions.

those are from source: Middle East Digest - September 1999

There should be more instances from other places. This idea that Jews were loved sooo much more than in European countries is really a myth, and that Islamic cultures didn't contain anti-semitism(anti-Jewish) is also a myth, and has been challenged. Much of this article really seems more like an apology for today's Islamic anti-semitism. Also, I think the regular Anti-Semitism page also gives more examples which should be used here.

Also, I think this article should be merged with "Arab anti-semitism" into "Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism, because nearly all Arabs and most influential Arabs were and are Muslim. Moreover, I think there is a place for THIS Bernard Lewis line: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam." And while I know Jewish Virtual Library itself isn't a source, if you go to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html this page, it DOES LIST SOURCES from which to find how this "Golden Age" was a myth. The article gives too much of an impression that Israel and Zionism is responsible for Islamic anti-semitism.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arabs are Hamites not Semites
Arabs are the sons of Ham, noahs son, just as jews are the sons of shem....Arabic is a perversion of hebrew and the koran is a perversion of the torah while the hadith is a perversion of the talmud, jews were murdered by the bushel over the many centuries of islam...all the rest is specualtion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Some points
Laqueur writes, and the context again refers to the Qur'an: "'It is easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left."

Reuven Firestone, an authority on Islam, writes "'Jihad does not mean in the Qur’an ‘holy war’.'(Reuven Firestone, 'Jihad', in Andrew Rippin (ed.) Blackwell companion to the Qur'ān, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006, ch.20, pp.308-320 p.308)"

Firestone then gives a detailed philological analysis of this and the related terms harb and qitāl in the Qur'an.

Laqueur has no professional knowledge of the field. Firestone, a rabbi and authority on Arabic and islamic civilization, writes for his peers. Again, I ask. Why should Laqueur's amateur opinions be highlighted, when area specialists not mentioned so far deny what he is asserting? Surely the simplest thing is to write of jihad, according to what the best secondary sources by academic authorities say? Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What, if anything, does Firestone say about Islam and antisemitism? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Read his books and articles. However. What, if anything, does the encyclopedia of Islam, and the encyclopedia of the Qur'an say about Islam and antisemitism?Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've brought Firestone up; if you can't demonstrate that he writes about the topic of this article, Islam and antisemitism, then he is not relevant to it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have analysed the pre-existing bibliography. Ten of the sources cited before my work began do not contain anything on 'Antisemitism and Islam'. Several more, including Mark Cohen, only mention it in an aside(repeating Lewis's point). So what is your angle in challenging me alone for using, as did prior editors, general works on Islam and the Qur'an's attitude to Jews. I would remind you that, if you edit an article, you are supposed to edit the article (and coherently) not single out and try to supervise one editor's contributions, especially only to challenge them on a principle you do not apply to other editors or to the article overall.
 * Firestone is one of the Jewish world's leading authority on the history of Jewish-Islamic relations, and the Qur'an.
 * You are waving an assumption, and passing it off as a fundamental rule of wiki procedures, while disdaining to show that it is valid. The assumption is in plain terms
 * (a)Some articles have two themes (and) intertwined.
 * (b)The secondary sources employed to write the article must be restricted to those that deal exclusively with both themes simultaneously.
 * (c)Reuven Firestone's book doesn't talk of antisemitism, therefore it cannot be cited, even though it deals extensively with Islam, Jews and Islam.


 * Many wiki and articles, as mentioned, do not seem to follow your principle, and this page has been composed (see above) in complete ignorance of it (I think rightly). I cited one, the parallel Christianity and antisemitism page, and I note again you disdain to reply. I can cite several more. But you refuse to answer my clarification, and merely repeat this point. Please clarify your idiosyncratic interpretation of what wiki editing rules require. Where in the rulebook is the authority for your assertion or assumption?Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "Ten of the sources cited before my work began do not contain anything on 'Antisemitism and Islam'"? Which ones, and what, instead, do they actually discuss? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean. Do your homework, don't engage in polemics that require your interlocutor to hand over his. As you will observe, these books and articles were cited on the page before I began to edit it. And they violate the arbitrary norm you have pulled out of the hat and exploit to say only works that deal with both topic in the title can be used as reliable sources.


 * (1)Wehr, Hans (1976). J. Milton Cowan, ed.. ed. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Ithaca, New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc.(absent)


 * (2)Watt, Montgomery (1956). Muhammad at Medina. Oxford: University Press.(absent)


 * (3) Arberry, Arthur J. (1955). The Koran interpreted. London: Allen & Unwin. (absent)


 * (4)Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala (1967). The Meaning of the Quran. Lahore: Islamic Publications Limited.(absent)


 * (5)Rodinson, Maxime (1971). Mohammed. Great Britain: Allen Lane the Penguin Press. Translated by Anne Carter. (absent)


 * (6)Said, Abdul Aziz (1979). 'Precept and Practice of Human Rights in Islam'. Universal Human Rights. The Johns Hopkins University Press . By the way, the text should be cited as in Universal Human Rights, New York, vol 1. no.1 (January-March 1979) pp.63-79 (nothing)


 * (7) Sanasarian, Eliz (2000). Religious Minorities in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (mentions once European anti-semitism) p.109 as a one element in modern Iranian outbursts of hostility.(near zero)


 * (8)Viré, F. (2006) 'Kird' in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Eds.: P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill. Viré’a entry expounds ‘kird’ (qird) ‘monkey’ in Arabic and discusses the Jew as a transformed ape in Spain (citing much the same stuff Pérès did in his 1953 study of Andalusian poetry (1953, which we see Lewis cited), not antisemitism.


 * (9)Cohen, Mark (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. All references I have checked are to Christian antisemitism, which constitutes one half of the book. Cohen’s position, as per below, is that antisemitism is inappropriate to discussing Muslim attitudes before the late 19th-early 20th century.


 * (10)Cohen, Mark (2002), 'Medieval Jewry in the aworld of Islam' in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, Chapter 9, Oxford University Press, 2002 Ch.9 pp,194-218ff. In this article, Cohen uses the word en passant, once, ‘Most scholars concede, in fact, that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of competing Jewish and Arab nationalisms', p.209. This is an aside. The word never recurs in his paper. The paper in fact has nothing on Jewish antisemitism in Islam.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If these sources don't discuss antisemitism, then they shouldn't be used, and any material based on them should be deleted. The solution is not to bring in even more OR sources that don't discuss antisemitism, but rather to cull the existing ones that are used for OR. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability WP:RS
I hate using the wikirule book, which I generally regard as a good tutorial manual for newcomers, but, since it is being thrown my way so consistently, without my being able to understand the points, I suppose I'll have to argue by using it. There are two wiki rules Jayjg is ignoring.

(1)Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Jayjg says it would be immaterial if the statement by Walter Laqueur were wrong, since he is a WP:RS (but, I add on antisemitism, not on ancient Arabic texts). The claim about the Qur'an made by Laqueur makes a passage read as an incitement to an antisemitic pogrom or genocide of the Jews. This is obviously an exceptional claim (since (a) no RS scholar, inside or outside, the world of Islam I am familiar with, has ever asserted such an interpretation of this passage Lqueur cites and (b) were such a text to exist in the Qur'an, it would make nonsense of the consensus that antisemitism is extraneous to that book). Since it is an exceptional claim therefore, it requires an exceptional source. The burden on Jayjg is to show that Laqueur is an 'exceptional' source for this exceptional claim. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of readers:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:


 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons.

(2) User:Jayjg has, despite repeated requests, yet to show why Walter Laqueur fits WP:RS criteria for a passage in the Qur'an. He has no credentials in the area of research and his area of expertise is modern history. He can be cited on Antisemitism, without a shadow of a doubt. It must be proven that he is reliable on the hermeneutics of Ancient Arabic religious scriptures, for which, in any case, we have hundreds of specialists available.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I haven't really responded to your statements about Laqueur because they weren't actually responses to any of the issues I raised. I opened the discussion on this page by asking if the sources you were using to construct counter-arguments were actually on the topic of this article, Islam and antisemitism. In response, you did not actually answer the question, but instead tried to justify your original research by complaining that Lewis had been misquoted, and that you didn't think Laqueur's arguments were accurate. That may or may not be true, but, as I have repeatedly pointed out, if those problems exist, you cannot fix them by inserting original research counter-arguments. I'm not under any obligation to respond to non sequiturs. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits by Nishidani
Hi Nishidani,

I noticed that you had made this series of edits to the article. Now, the sources you have used include:
 * Reuven Firestone, An introduction to Islam for Jews, Jewish Publication Society, 2008 p.188
 * Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed, (1961) tr.Anne Carter, Penguin Books, London 1971 p.159
 * Ali Khan, 'Commentary on the Constitution of Medina', in Hisham M. Ramadan (ed.) Understanding Islamic law: from classical to contemporary,, Rowman Altamira, 2006 pp.205-210 p.205
 * Michael Lecker, The "constitution of Medina": Muḥammad's first legal document‎, Studies in late antiquity and early Islam SLAEI vol.23, Darwin Press, 2004, passim
 * Douglas Pratt,The challenge of Islam: encounters in interfaith dialogue, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005, p.121, citing John Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, Oxford University Press, New York p.73
 * Douglas Pratt,The challenge of Islam: encounters in interfaith dialogue, ibid. p.122
 * Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed, ibid pp.152-3
 * Reuven Firestone,An introduction to Islam for Jews, p.33
 * Reuven Firestone,An introduction to Islam for Jews, p.36
 * Pratt, The challenge of Islam: encounters in interfaith dialogue, ibid. p.123

Do any of these sources actually mention the topic of this article, Islam and antisemitism? Do any of them even mention antisemitism? If not, can you explain how they are relevant to the topic of this article?

In addition, you bring up, and then appear to quote (or rather translate) from an ancient, primary source, the 'Constitution of Medina', specifically paragraphs 16 and 37. Can you explain how we know this primary material is relevant to the topic of this article?

Finally, you added this paragraph to the article: "However the interpretation of these 'enigmatic' passages in Islamic exegetics is highly complex, dealing as they do with infractions like breaking the Sabbath, and indeed the idea of Jewish Sabbath breakers turning into apes may reflect the influence of Yemeni midrashim. . The Qurayza tribe itself is described in Muslim sources as using the trope of being turned into apes if one breaks the Sabbath to justify not exploiting the Sabbath in order to attack Mohammad, when they were under siege."

Given the wording ("However...") this is obviously an attempt to construct a counter-argument to Bernard Lewis, using multiple sources. Do you have any sources that actually make this argument, in the context of this article, Islam and antisemitism? Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hysteron proteron. If you check the state of the text here before my intervention you will note someone has grossly mishandled Lewis's comments.


 * The text read:
 * "'Lewis adds, negative attributes ascribed to subject religions (in this case Judaism and Christianity) are usually expressed in religious and social terms, but very rarely in ethnic or racial terms. However, this does sometimes occur. The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets in the Qur'an are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians. ([Qur'an 2:61], [Qur'an 5:65], [Qur'an 7:166])[23]"


 * (a)The section deals with the Qur’an.


 * (b) Whoever interpolated that ‘in the Qur’an’ into the text, grossly distorts Lewis to make out he himself regards the conventional epithets in Muslim discourse for Jews and Christians as drawn from the Qur’an. Lewis, however, says no such thing. He writes on p.33:-


 * ‘The conventional epithets are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians,’ and contextually Lewis is referring to the polemical literature postdating the Qur’an. On p.198 he writes.


 * ‘The reference to apes may derive from the Qur’an (11,61; V, 65; VII, 166). His source for this hypothesis is Henry Pérès, La Poésie andalouse en arabe classique au XIe siècle, Paris Adrien-Maisonneuve 1953.


 * In short, Lewis's comment on post-Qur'anic terms of obloquy for Jews and Christians has been manipulated to lend his authority to the view that the Qur'an itself uses this language. Lewis however, in his note, says this is an hypothesis advanced by another scholar.


 * Whoever did this has created a prejudicial misprision of the text, falsifying an hermeneutically complex text, while adducing as authority for this misinterpretation Bernard Lewis, who however did neither.


 * You can elide the 'however', by all means, but I have made no original research here. I have simply provided, to the controversial and key passage which has been wilfully misrepresented, a small selection of comments by two Jewish experts in ancient Islamic thought, literature and society which clarify the problems resident in reading the Qur'anic passage in this way.


 * I'll answer your other queries presently. In the meantime could you do me the courtesy of giving the exact lines in al-Baqara which call for the 'slaying of Jews (the sons of apes and pigs)', as Walter Laqueur glosses it?. Laqueur is of course an historian (though without a professional degree in any university) specializing in modern history, and esp. terrorism and fascism. He has zero zero qualifications for being cited authoritatively on a recondite area like the hermeneutics of the Qur'an. I am having great difficulty in finding qualified specialists on Qur'anic traditions who support his comment. I'd appreciate clarification on this since you support this citation here. There is something odd about it, since the Qur'an is being credited with regarding the Jews as 'the sons of pigs', an epithet to my knowledge reserved in later Muslim polemics for Christians. Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Lewis, if someone has misquoted or misrepresented Lewis, then the correct response is to fix the representation, not to add one's own counter-arguments. Do the "two Jewish experts in ancient Islamic thought" actually address the issue of antisemitism? Also, please keep in mind that "clarify[ing] the problems resident in reading the Qur'anic passage in this way" is, in fact, synthesizing a counter-argument. Regarding your statement that I "support this citation [of Walter Laqueur]", I assume you are referring to my reversion of these obviously inappropriate edits by an IP editor. Regarding your request that I investigate a primary source (al-Baqara), I think it makes more sense to rely on what reliable secondary sources like Laqueur have to say on topics, rather than trying to develop our own analyses or counter-arguments. Now, I'd appreciate it if you could let us all know if any of the sources or materials you use actually discuss the topic of this article, that is, Islam and antisemitism. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayjg. You raise, by my count, several distinct yet interconnected objections to all my edits. I think the simplest way of resolving the difference between us is to take them one, by one. Once we have clarified a, I'll move to b, and so on. This means breaking things down. I hope you agree that a point by point, resolved to not-resolved approach would be the best way to iron out the disagreements?


 * (1)You write "'Regarding Lewis, if someone has misquoted or misrepresented Lewis, then the correct response is to fix the representation, not to add one's own counter-arguments."


 * I agree. Indeed this is precisely what I did, in contrast to your own earlier edit here, which did not ‘fix the (mis)representation’ but merely retained the text misrepresenting Lewis while deleting what another editor had added in explanation of it.


 * Can we then agree that (i) Lewis was misrepresented, and my rephrasing elides whatever misleading impression or misrepresentation the earlier edit contained? I shall address your odd, but repeated suggestion I am adding personal counter-arguments (WP:NOR violations) to Lewis later. First things first.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to 1


 * (2) You write"'Regarding your statement that I 'support this citation [of Walter Laqueur]', I assume you are referring to my reversion of these obviously inappropriate edits by an IP editor. Regarding your request that I investigate a primary source (al-Baqara), I think it makes more sense to rely on what reliable secondary sources like Laqueur have to say on topics,"


 * The text is
 * 'Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them'. Jews are said to be treacherous and hypocritical and could never be friends with a Muslim.[9]' (The source is Laqueur p.192)
 * No such text, as italicized, exists in Al-Baqara. In your revert you retain this, without checking it. I take this as support. The line is a synthesis, by Laqueur, of Al-Baqara 2:191 and Al-Ma'ida 5.60. Al Baqara 2:191 refers to what Muhammad’s followers should do against those who fight them. Jews and Christians are not specified. Al Mā’idah, on the other hand alludes to Arab pagans, and to some Jews and Christians (those who have fallen from the way of the Torah, and the Gospels). Laqueur, with no formal academic grounding in Islamic studies or classical Arabic philology, has mounted a selective synthesis of disparate verses and passed them off as one verse, aimed exclusively at Jews, using Al Ma’idah to interpret Al Baqara, while attributing his synthetic interpretation, as an amateur, to the cast of thought only of Al Baqara. Laqueur has manufactured an interpretation that misreads the text and misleads his readers.
 * I asked you to check, because, in my view, if an otherwise reliable source for a topic steps out of his area of specific competence (Laqueur's is modern history. fascism, totalitarianism and terrorism) and engages in an hermeneutic synthesis of an obscure field in a way no competent Islamic specialists (Rodinson, Lewis, Cahen, Kramer, Firestone, etc.etc.) would do, we should not be using him on this, but rather recur to whatever our Islamic specialists say. If I understand your position corrrectly, you are arguing that, even if wrong in a grievously misleading way, Laqueur fits WP:RS and therefore cannot be challenged, even if he has demonstrably patched up a fiction.
 * My question therefore is: what does Wiki's best practice say about situations where a WP:RS patently makes an error. Does one leave the error in, because the source qualifies, even though the WP:RS source is handling an area outside of his specific area of competence, and even when the misinterpretation creates an extremely damaging, historically false impression? Or does one cast around for a better source, from area specialists, to correct the error? Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to 2


 * (3)Both Lewis and Laqueur raise the question of the ape+Jew metaphor in the Qu'ran. I added two further RS to provide more focus on precisely this, i.e. what the text adduced by Laqueur may actually refer to. These are given in strict paraphrase, as consecutive views on the same point. Supplementary detail on something Lewis was misquoted on, and Laqueur gets completely wrong. So far you appear to be defending the retention of Laqueur's misprision of the Qur'anic verse, while challenging my addition of two sources from qualified specialists in Islamic studies that correct any misapprehension arising from Laqueur's pastiche. To defend an on-page error while refusing to allow its correction, or the addition of material that corrects the misrepresentation is, I think, tantamount to 'gaming the text'.
 * There is no synthesis, there is no original research, other than doing the standard reading of secondary sources required of responsible editors. Please explain to me why you persist in branding my use of high quality, textually relevant reliable secondary sources other than Lewis and Laqueur, a violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.
 * 'Reply to 3


 * (7)You first wrote, and complain that I have not answered you, that"In addition, you bring up, and then appear to quote (or rather translate) from an ancient, primary source, the 'Constitution of Medina', specifically paragraphs 16 and 37. Can you explain how we know this primary material is relevant to the topic of this article?"
 * You make two points here, that I appear to cite a primary source, (or worse still translate it myself) and you ask if it is relevant.
 * Had you checked the text, you would have seen that the translations, and the primary document, are sourced in note 22 to an excellent secondary source (as per WP:RS), namely to a book by Maxime Rodinson dealing precisely with this period, and extensively with Jewish-Islamic relations in that formative era. He is considered one of the finest scholars of Islam and semitic languages in the last century. Since it comes from a secondary source, and bears, precisely, on 'the teaching of Islam relating to Jews and Judaism' (see lead) it is perfectly congruent with the requirements of the article.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to 7.


 * Hi Nishidani.
 * Reverting obviously inappropriate and policy violating edits is the correct and uncontroversial thing to do when such edits are made, especially by IP editors unfamiliar with policy. Do you consider those edits by that IP to have conformed with Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NOR?
 * Writing one's own rebuttals of the statements of reliable secondary sources is forbidden by policy; the term for this is original research. That would include the arguments you have constructed against Laqueur's and Lewis's views. If either of these historians have been misquoted, then quote them more accurately, but don't synthesize arguments against them.
 * The primary, and indeed, only important questions that must be answered here are the ones I asked initially: Do any of these [new] sources [that you have brought] actually mention the topic of this article, Islam and antisemitism? Do any of them even mention antisemitism? If not, can you explain how they are relevant to the topic of this article?
 * I asked those questions on the 3rd. You said you would answer them "presently". It is now the 6th. The present has arrived. Answer, please. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jay. I'd far prefer sticking to the text, as I have striven to do, than engage in pettifogging over personal views on etiquette or strained and questionable manipulations of the wiki rule book. However your last remarks demand I say something here.


 * "The primary, and indeed, only important questions that must be answered here are the ones I asked initially."


 * Have you any idea of how offensive that is? It intimates that you think the questions on your mind have an absolute priority over the questions or remarks your interlocutor may raise or address to you. This is a dialogue, not an inquisition by an ex cathedra authority of some lout hauled in from the street for suspicious views. Equal dignity must obtain.


 * As to the tardiness. Please check the timelogs. You first posted, my time, late at night. I replied immediately on rising. Your reply came 14 hours later, again, just as I retired. On rising, I promptly answered at 11.34 am. I tinkered with my answer all day, while checking in, waiting for a reply. Your reply to my 5th of September 11.34 am. remarks comes now at 17:34 the day after. I.e. 30 hours later. And what is the content? You reprove me for being late in answering you! Come now, really! This looks rather like an endeavour to fudge an impression I am a reluctant, evasive and otiose correspondent, when the timelog registers the opposite.


 * I wrote out a complete 8 page reply to all of your concerns, three days ago. Before repeating those concerns, which strike me as ungrounded, please check the range of sources on this page and the parallel Christianity and antisemitism page. The Encyclopedia of Islam, the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an here, and Robin Fox and Nancy Calvert Koyzis books there have very little, if anything, to say about antisemitism, and yet are used to contextualize the argument. Background is normative for all wiki articles, even those with and (two themes intertwined).


 * Since the repeated accusations of NOR and synthesis are wholly unfounded and seemingly based on your misapprehensions about the nuances of the word 'however' (nothing else), I decided the best approach was to pull the section apart, and reply to your queries systematically. Post the lot at once and the likely response is TLDR. To reply laconically, I require you clarify the two points I raised. You refuse to, hence I am withholding the second part, whose form depends on how you reply to these two questions. If one cannot agree about premises, there's no point in engaging in dialectics.


 * One small point. Yes, I said I would answer your other points 'presently', asking you, in the interim to explain the problem I raised about Laqueur. I simply checked his quotation, and found it was not in the source he said it was in. My question is, again, if a generic RS errs, is his error to be retained or not? Yes or no?


 * You keep repeating I have constructed arguments against Laqueur and Lewis's views. This is an insinuation that you have not proven. I corrected Lewis's words in the article that had been fiddled with by some editor. Lewis as corrected has no argument or view. He simply states what most scholars on Islam agree to. I can see nothing anyone would dispute about in what Lewis writes, since he is summarizing the state of learning at the time of writing. My additional material, from RS simply throw light on the ape image he mentions. It's not something only Lewis writes on: I have ten articles by Islamic studies specialists on the point. Are you saying we can only cite Lewis on the metaphor of Jews as apes?


 * As to Laqueur, I have shown on this talk page his quotation is an illegitimate synthesis of two disparate remarks passed off as if they were one sentence in Qur'an 2:191. I have left that quotation from Laqueur in the article, and before editing it, have been requesting input on the crux I raised here on the talk page. You appear to be challenging the propriety of my noting, on a talk page, that a section of the text is patently wrong, simply because Laqueur is Laqueur. indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. We differ. I think Laqueur is a RS on modern history, and antisemitism, but not for the Qur'anic period. You think because he is RS on antisemitism, his views on subjects he has no formal training in qualify, even if he gets things wrong.


 * Since, by the tone of your last post, we seem to be at an impasse, and you in turn are reluctant to answer my own questions, I suggest we call in Avi, Slimvirgin, Nathan, or anyone else we both can trust for neutrality and experienced judgement, for some input. ? Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, you've managed to write over 2800 words here over several days, but without yet actually answering the questions I asked on the first day. Regarding your claim that you have not constructed counter-arguments to Lewis, instead you write that you have added material from RS that "simply throw light on the ape image he mentions". However, since none of the sources apparently discuss the subject of this article, Islam and antisemitism, what you are engaging in is WP:SYNTH. Regarding what the lede of the article says, it doesn't really matter how well or poorly written it is, the subject is antisemitism in relation to Islam. If you want to discuss other aspects of the relationship between Islam and Judaism, feel free to contribute to the Islam and Judaism or even Biblical narratives and the Qur'an articles. Finally, regarding getting other people involved, I'd be happy if they would. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the word count. When I have to wait on average 15 hours for you to reply, I tend to be exhaustive. Let it be clear. From the beginning nothing you raised seemed to me to be relevant in the least, and your objections strike me as playing with the rulebook casuistically, while disregarding the urgent need to work on the article. Our object in here is to improve articles, not run seminars on wiki rules, taking everyone that crosses one's path as a raw neophyte in dire need of instruction in the finer points. I regard ritual waving of the wiki rulebook much as an aged Confucian scholar might regard a Red Guard, in a classroom on the Analects, waving Mao's little book in his face.


 * Since you will not clarify what on earth you mean by your accusations, but merely say I have violated WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, I have to strain my wits to imagine what on earth you are talking about. As an author of a standard academic textbook, I know, as I have known the difference for 40 years, how to distinguish personal research from a precise paraphrase of secondary sources. There are plenty of kids who may need your advice here on this. I don't.


 * I have replied extensively to all of your objections. You do not reply to my answers, but merely repeat your Sir Oracle representation of how you think wiki rules apply to what I have posted. Please therefore do me the courtesy, and show in detail how and where I have violated wiki procedures. Otherwise, call in third parties. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. Original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. None of your the arguments and "clarifications" you have brought are on the topic of this article, which is Islam and antisemitism. Quoting from WP:SYNTH:
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
 * The topic of this article is Islam and antisemitism. Material synthesized from other topics will have to go. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, again, you are simply repeating by rote what you think of the wiki rulebook, failing to examine the textual problem in the article, and turning a deaf ear to the responses I made to answer your objections. Could you please read closely the rule you cite? The key words are 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'. Show me where I have done this.
 * You are asserting, in my view falsely, that my citation of three consecutive sources, for three distinct ideas, constitutes synthesis. It doesn't. One notes that the text Laqueur cites in his conflation of sources may refer to Sabbath-breakers. Another suggests the image of the Jew as ape may come from Yemenite midrashim; a third says Muslim sources say this may come from Jewish tradition. What is 'explicitly stated' is neither a conclusion nor not explicitly stated in the three texts I adduce. I have merely given an update on what three specialists independently argue about the material in the two texts Laqueur has mischievously conflated. Each point is a scholar's independent hypothesis.
 * As the argument stands, you are supporting (a) the use of a non-reliable source on the Qur'an (Walter Laqueur), which (b) mucks up by synthesis a pseudo-quotation from the Qur'an to create a false text (c) and you challenge the legitimacy of any addition to the text that might clarify the actual facts that are grazed on by this contrived quotation. To do this is to support an error in the text, and hold hostage any editorial attempt either to remove that error, or clarify the facts that error disguises. Not only odd, this is very dubious practice. I'd remind you that we are under an extensive topic ban imposed to avoid even the faintest possibility that wiki articles dealing with Israeli/Jewish and Arab/Palestinian issues might suffer from improper editing  or unnecessary antagonism. Your position seems to be one of support for a mistake that creates a malicious image, and hostility to the addition of any scholarly material which actually examines the facts behind that image.
 * Specifically, you appear to support a non-RS source on the Qur'an, and hold to hostage any edit that comes from impeccable, front-ranking scholars of the Qur'an on the very same topic. The effect of your editorial practice strikes me as using the wikirule book to justify the retention of an fabricated image injurious to Muslim sensibilities, and, more seriously, the retention of a concocted piece of pseudo-scholarship that falsifies the known facts in a way that misleads readers as it misrepresents another religion. This is one reason I believe it is inappropriate for you, and by turns, myself, to be editing this area. The Arbcom ban aimed to stop tendentious editing in the I/P area. I think what is happening here is highly tendentious, and should come under the ban. I would gladly recuse myself if you in turn simply admit the Laqueur passage is flawed, and requires adjustment, preferably by someone competent in this area. Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Laqueur discusses Islam and antisemitism, and specifically, in the case you have raised, in hadith a passage in the Qur'an written over a thousand years before the I/P conflict arose. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and one must not address alleged issues with sourcing or citing by creating counter-arguments from sources that don't discuss the article's subject. Rather than discussing other editors, please address this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Proof to all who watch this page that you simply do not understand the most elementary facts about the topic you are monitoring. In the suspect passage, laqueur does not discuss a hadith, but a passage in the Qur'an. A hadith is, by definition, a saying attributed to Muhammad which was not conserved in the Qur'an, but only in later tradition, Jayjg.


 * You have yet to show why Laqueur is a WP:RS on the Qur'an, which is precisely the nub of the question. He patently isn't.
 * By illustration. Robert Kumamoto in his International terrorism and American Foreign relations 1945-1976, UPNE, 1999 p.58: John B. Quigley, The case for Palestine: an international law perspective, Duke University Press, 2005 2nd rev ed. p.58: Abba Eban,  Personal witness: Israel through my eyes, Putnam, 1992 p.137; Saul S. Friedman, A history of the Middle East, McFarland, 2006 p.250: Sari Nusseibeh, Once Upon a Country, Halban 2009 p.54 are all RS for the I/P area, yet all of them, left, right, and centre, give 250 for the number killed at Deir Yassin. Since 1956 we know the figure is from 110-120. The old datum is kept alive in the RS literature. If an RS can be cited even when it gets things patently wrong, anyone could haul these and many other eminently good sources to that page and start insisting that since they assert the old figure, we must air the datum, fallen into desuetude in uptodate histories, in the following way:
 * "'According to Sari Nusseibeh, John B. Quigley, Abba Eban, and Saul S. Friedman (specialist in the ancient and modern middle eastern studies at Youngstown State University), the number killed at Deir Yassin is 250. According to Aref al-Aref, Benny Morris, Uri Milstein and others, the figure is roughly 110.'" One simply does not do this, because as anyone who reads books knows, many reliable sources retain demonstrably false or outdated information. Editors must know the subject or express a desire to read thoroughly up on the subject edited, and use discretion in order to achieve highly reliable content fitting the aims of this encyclopedia. They should not fetishize WP:RS in an indiscriminate fashion, using bad information in good sources simply because it may suit an extra-textual interest. The danger here is that manipulation of the wikirule book becomes the aim of editing, supplanting the primary nature of the project, which is to write articles on the basis of the best scholarship available.


 * It is obvious that when a scholar clearly errs (as did Laqueur) one just doesn't keep his error in the text out of respect for his monicker or person. It takes no personal research to see that Laqueur made a huge blooper. It merely takes some knowledge of the article topic. I don't know what wikipedia says here, but I would expect that it would prioritize editorial practice based on a knowledge of the subject being edited. It is not sufficient to merely study the rulebook in order to make judgements on what can and cannot go onto a page. In any case, on this argument it is reasonable to suggest that some editors risk showing a glaring conflict of interest, if they insist on the retention of a smear on Islam in an article dealing with that faith, while they themselves belong to religious worlds (Christian or otherwise) that have a long history of difficult relations with that creed. It was wrong to hasten the closure of the Arbcom discussion on whether or not we, the banned, should be allowed to nibble into articles like this. Gatoclass was absolutely right in his call, and we are seeing the consequences of a lack of serious Arbcom oversight here.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct in one thing; I said hadith, when I meant a passage in the Qur'an. Of course I'm well aware of the difference, and the debates over which hadith are reliable and which are not, etc. but was actually reading the section in the article on hadith just before responding. Thanks for noting that, though I must also point out that the discussion here must be about article content, not insults directed at editors. Regarding the rest, it's simply not relevant. I opened this section by asking which of the sources you added actually discussed antisemitism; it's clear that few, if any, do. In reply - or more accurately, lack thereof - you attempted to have a long discussion about whether Walter Laqueur had analyzed the Qur'an correctly, and continually challenged me to defend Laqueur. If you want to discuss Laqueur's sentence in some other section, feel free to do so, but please do not expect me to be distracted from the central issue here. You added material which, at this point, is quite clearly original research. Laqueur has nothing to do with that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For the casual reader: of the five sources Jayjg questioned, three are readily accessible online and all three explicitly address Islam and antisemitism. I'm in the process of checking the other two. This and related threads appear to be nothing more than an obstructionist bluff on Jayjg's part.--G-Dett (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)