Talk:Christianity/Archive 32

Islamic persecution of Christians
Bat Ye'or is a controversial author: See. Also, have a look at the Dhimmitude article. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that "If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes. "

How is that a good article is using a source which is actually spreading myths? --Aminz 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these are not myths but sad events of history. They can certainly be overstated but I don't thin this is done in our article and in most of current talk, that prefers to dwell on other myths e.g. the golden age of Islamic tolerance. Str1977 (smile back) 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I don't think we should convince each other here. Two professors from Princeton university and one from Chicago university testify that Bat Ye'or is a biased author who is propagating a myth. And the golden age was a golden age in its day. But again, we should focus on the article I think. It is perfectly okay for us to disagree on some points. --Aminz 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My only contribution here is that I have some familiarity with Greek texts from the time of the Islamic conquests. There was a great exodus of Greeks from the East at this time, and in their writings they talk vividly about fields of corpses left in the wake of Muslim conquests.  They also discuss the very real fear of being sold into slavery after their land and property had been seized.  If this material is of interest, or secondary literature concerning it, then I could provide it.Lostcaesar 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And when did this happen? --Aminz 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * During the seventh century conquests; on the growth of the slave trade resulting from Arab conquests see Brett, Michael, The Arab Conquests and the Rise of Islam in north Africa in The Cambridge History of Arfica II 500 BC to AD 1050, ed. JD Fage (Cambridge: 1978) pp. 490-555 . Obviously, this is not a contraversial source. Lostcaesar 13:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course this is good source and I can have access to it. But please let me the page number and paragraph number in which the book states that Christians were massacred. I can get access to the book from the university library. Thanks. BTW, we need statements of general treatment of Christians under Muslim rule. Both Mark Cohen and Bernard Lewis state that although non-Muslims had an the inferior status under Islamic rule but in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe"--Aminz 22:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All the time since 632. Str1977 (smile back) 12:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Str1977, I think you can publish a book and criticize Prof. Bernard Lewis's book published by Princeton university press. Because Lewis writes that "persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical". You can make lots of money if you could sue him :P But before that, please back up your statements using academic sources. Thank you. --Aminz 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So because there is controversy about Bat Yeor and because Mr Lewis says so, we are not allowed that there was persecution under Islamic rule. Even Mr Lewis cannot and does not deny that. He even acknowledges the myth I am talking about, though his work is focused on the situation of the Jews. You, Aminz, can sue whomever you want - I won't. I don't believe in sueing because of disagreement. Sueing for what, actually? Str1977 (smile back) 12:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. What troubles me most here is that an undisputed fact is labelled controversial just because you don't like think controversial the link given in the references. That certainly can be ammended. But the article text does not depend on or refer to the controversial part of Bat Yeor's writings. "Dhimmitude" isn't even mentioned. Str1977 (smile back) 12:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lewis states that "persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical", so, instead of doing original research cite your sources please. --Aminz 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

From my knowledge of history, let me point out that persecution was quite common from both sides in the Middle Ages. This isn't even considered debatable - though the word persecution certainly has differing levels of meaning. The "Christian" nations of Europe were notoriousoly harsh towards Muslims (e.g., the Crusades) and Jews, but the Muslims were anything but innocent themselves (the violent conversions of the 7th century just as an example). It seems that, from about 0AD-2000AD, anybody that was a majority was bound to persecute the minority (Muslims on christians, Muslims on jews, Catholics on Protestants on Catholics, Romans on Christians and Jews, and Jews on Christians). A reference seems entirely appropriate for Muslims persecution, but, if this is not noted elsewhere, this caveat should certainly be present: that persecution under the name of religion was something that occurred on every side toward every other side. However, as Aminz has pointed out, the word "perseuction" must be defined to a certain extent. For example, Muslims were notoriously easier on Jews than Christians until the 20th century, but even in the Christian world, Jews were usually allowed to practice their religion, and even became wealthy. So, how intent was the persecution? Perhaps some specific details ought to be given. -Patstuart 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Persecution in the sense of "violent" behavior toward non-believers was rare in Muslim lands contrary to Christian land. There is absolutely no violent conversion happened in 7th century. Your source please? There were some forced conversion in 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as sometimes in Iran where Shiasm is dominant. But aside from that, the conversions were all voluntary. (cf. Bernard Lewis (1984), pp. 17, 18, 94, 95; Norman Stillman (1979), p. 27) . --Aminz 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like parallel reality to me, both in regard to the situation in "Muslim lands" (lands under Muslim control) and Christian land, where "violent behavior toward non-believers" was not standard practice either. And still no relevance to this article and this issue. Str1977 (smile back) 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is without foundation, as Aminz simply bases himself on one voice that doesn't even contradict what the article says.
 * I certainly disagree with what Mr Lewis said (unless he also calls "persecution" of Jews (and Muslims) in Christendom "in the form of violent and active repression ... rare and atypical". That Muslims were notoriously easier on Jews than Christians is true in so far they were easier on Jews that there were on Christians. That Europe was notoriously harsh towards Muslims is ridiculous as there are few cases that Muslims came under Christian rule (Sicily, Spain) - No one has ever heard of Christians conquering Mecca and destroying the Kaaba, while it has happened the other way around.
 * However, these considerations are not relevant in the actual issue: the article says that Christians suffered persecution from various groups, including Muslims. That is accurate and nothing here has called that into question. Remove the tag! Str1977 (smile back) 07:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's only a quote saying "Christians have suffered from many groups, including muslims?" then it needs to stay. Removing it is POV. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question is:

"State persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire is taken to have ended with the Edict of Milan[79], but it persisted or even intensified in other places, such as Sassanid Persia[80], and later under Islam[81], which has continued to the present day.[82][83]"

I don't see how this can be controversial. Str1977 (smile back) 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone is unhappy with the citation, another one maybe could be provided. But as it stands, it looks good. Aminz, if you have anything to add or cite against this statement, now would be the time to speak up. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are classifying Islam together with Sassanid Persia. Islam was far more tolerant than Persian Empire and Byzantinum. The Muslim conquerers lowered the taxes, provided greater religous freedom and greater local autonomy cf. John Esposito, (1998), p.34. Bernard Lewis writes that Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the Dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters. Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. cf. Lewis (2002) p.57

When it comes to comparison, Muslim treated their subjects much better than others did. But yes, there were definitely discriminations and humiliations. However all these were of social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character. --Aminz 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And as I said before, Bat Ye'or and Islamophobes like Robert Spencer should be used in wikipedia with much care. --Aminz 01:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So because somebody is opposed to a group and the group in question doesn't like it enough to throw around fairly meaningless polemical language, Wikipedia must struggle to find sources which don't have a view unfavorable to Islam? Because as far as i've ever been able to tell, whenever anybody actually applies the word "Islamophobe", it always means "critic of Islam", whether the person using the term denies it or not. Your John Esposito does indeed seem to be a reliable enough source who probably represents a fairly predominent POV, but then, Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer, although apparently just writers, certainly represent a POV worthy of fair inclusion as well, presented alongside people like John Esposito. Homestarmy 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bat Ye'or is closer to be an scholar when compared against the Islamophobe Spencer who has no academic training in Islamic studies (nor has Bat Ye'or btw). POV worthy of inclusion???? You must be kidding.... --Aminz 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not respond anymore to Aminz' fairy tale about how light the Islamic yoke was (probably the Christian population dwindled because the light yoke made them want to convert to Islam). And neither to his irrelevant comparisons - even if Islamic rule were lighter than the Sassanids or Byzantium, that doesn't change anything about Islamic rule itself ... and nothing in regard to the sentence in question. That there was persecution of Christians by Muslims is a fact - and the text says no more. Str1977 (smile back) 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Christian population dwindled becaused of the process of Arab settlement and their gradual assimiliation into the dominant culture. The taxation, though less than that in Christian lands, was also a motivation. Muslim citizens were paying less taxes. And lastly, unlike the Jews who were happy in the Muslim lands, for many of Christians, transition from a dominant to a subject status, which involved disadvantages, was too much to endure. --Aminz 06:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Though is entirely irrelevant to the article:
 * Arab settlement? On whose land?
 * Gradual assimilation? By what means?
 * You are leaving out the fact that this tax applied to the "protected people" and though it might have been less than the Byzantine taxation it also made those liable for it second-class citizens.
 * Are you really saying that never ever Muslims employed force? That there never was any persecution? So those Christians freely gave up their children to become Janitchares? The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem just collapsed in the 11th century?
 * And as for those "happy Jews", ask the Banu-Nadhir or the Banu-Kuraiza or the Banu-Kainuka, ... if you can find them.
 * Finally, I wasn't aware of Bat Ye'or until you mentioned her. I have now read a few articles avaiable on the internet. Though there are indeed some problematic things contained, to portray her as an Islamophobe is ridiculous. How many times have I read in these articles about negative and positive aspects of what she calls "Dhimmitude"? Or of appeals to the tolerant aspects of Islam?
 * Str1977 (smile back) 07:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As per your request above, see D.J. Constantelos, The Moslem Conquests of the Near East as revealed in the Greek Sources of the Seventh and Eighth Centurie, Byzantion 42 (1972) pp325-57. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalsm, regarded Arabs as wild animals who left a trail of bloodshed and abandoned human bodies behind them wherever they went (p322). In light of the sources, Constantelos concludes that the earlier view of the Arab' tolerance to Syrian Christians cannot be sustained, see p349. Lostcaesar 08:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To Lostcaesar, Thanks very much. I'll try to get access to the article tomorrow. Bernard Lewis, a renowned scholar of Islam, in his book published in 2002, supports the idea of Arab's tolerance to Syrian Christians. Esposito, another renowned scholar of Islam, also seems supporting this. But thanks for the source. It is another academic POV.
 * To Str1977, Jews were gratitude. These are not my words, but that of Bernard Lewis. He is talking about the overal postion of Jews under the Muslim rule. Again, I didn't say Bat Ye'or is an islamophobe. I said Spencer is and that is not my word, it is that prof. Carl Ernst --Aminz 09:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I always thought that Mr Lewis, even if his views are not always undisputed, was able to speak proper English.
 * And, in case you haven't noticed, this article isn't called "Judaism" or "Jews", so why you are disputing a perfectly uncontroversial general statement that "Christians have suffered from persecution by Muslims" by constantly appealing to a book that concerns itself with Jews under Islam, a related topic but not the same, is beyond me. Quite apart from the fact that Mr Lewis calls the "Golden age of Islamic tolerance" a myth (right in the link you provided above). Str1977 (smile back) 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Np Aminz; I think you will have to check how B. Lewis handeled the Sophronius material, and the sources in general. Also, it would be worth checking his bibliography to see if he knew of Constantelos's work. Lostcaesar 10:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Lewis: "Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."
 * And no, the Lewis doesn't use Constantelos's work. --Aminz 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is neither disputed nor relevant.
 * Sure those disaffected with Roman rule would welcome another power. However, that doesn't say that they were happy with what they got and it certainly doesn't say that there never was Islamic persecution of Christians. And that is what the issue was. Str1977 (smile back) 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Was persecution of Christians under early Islam more intense than it had been under the Roman Empire? I find that surprising, if so. (I know nothing about Sassanid Persia.) The main article, of which these paragraphs should be a summary, is Persecution of Christians, which is not one I follow. Speaking of sources in general, Bernard Lewis is one of the world's foremost historians, and the acknowledged expert on middle-east history, at least among those writing in English. If we have a choice of citing him or Bat Ye'Or, we should certainly cite Lewis. Tom Harrison Talk 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Roman Empire, Christianity was proscribed as such, though persecution happened in waves, depending on the will of local governors, mobs or the Emperor. Universal persecutions occured from 250 until Constantine. In contrast to this, Christianity was legal in most of the Islamic realm most of the time, though there were waves of harrassment and persecution as well.
 * The Sassandids persecuted Christians in the 3rd century and again since the 4th, suspecting Christians of being a Roman fifth column. (This is nota bene one of the few occurences of persecution by Zoroastrians).
 * Mr Lewis certainly is a respected man but even he has no monopoly on truth.
 * However, all this, as I said time and again is irrelevant regarding this dispute (if someone wants to open a new one, he may): the one sentence contained in the article is not disputed by Mr Lewis (who writes about Jews under Islam) or anyone. It does not rest on the works of Bat Ye'or, even thoug she is given as a reference (In fact she deals not with persecutions as such but with the common life of the dhimmis).
 * Str1977 (smile back) 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lewis writes about both Christians and Jews and even Zoroastrians in his book. You haven't even read his book, how can you make such judgments? --Aminz 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to have read his book. But still, your postings make no sense in regard to the article. Str1977 (smile back) 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To Aminz: I don't mean this to sound harsh, I am not judging your religion, but I will be blunt. In Saudi Arabia, it is punishable by death to convert to Christianity, and it is not an unenforced law, as it was carried out, I believe, as late as the 1990s. Recently, in the same country, a man was put in prison for handing on Bible tracts... in his church's parking lot. And in Afghanistan, a man was recently almost put to death as well. I'm not going to try to justify if this was the right course of action; that's a religious debate, and I understand why Muslims think so. But it is persecution. And it's not like the article calls it great persecution (I can't imagine how the death penalty is anything else, though). And you yourself acknowledged that persecution occurred in the 12th century. That is enough. I believe the small quotation should stay. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My father lived in Saudi Arabia for a year, and I can confirm that what Patstuart says is true. Lostcaesar 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent we are talking about conditions in the Muslim world today. The sentence under discussion is:
 * "State persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire is taken to have ended with the Edict of Milan, but it persisted or even intensified in other places, such as Sassanid Persia, and later under Islam."

That seems to suggest that state persecution under Islam in, say, 800AD, was more intense than it was in the pagan Roman empire. Is that what we mean, and is it accurate? Or am I misunderstanding the paragraph? Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to reword it, but I think it's consensus here that there should be some mention of persecution. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 16:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in the wording of this section for a long time I can positively state that Tom's reading was not intended. The wording tried to say that persecution ceased within the Empire, but in other places it persisted or intensified compared to the previous state in these parts, e.g. the Sassanids persecuted Christians all along but after the Rome had become Christian, this intensified. In Arabia, one could say, matters worsened as there was no persecution at all before Islam, but that wasn't the scope of the passage.
 * Finally, what Pat and LC said indeed refers to conditions in the Muslim world today, but these are defintely not substantially different from history. Str1977 (smile back) 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it is easier to criticize than improve, but here is a proposal:
 * "State persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire itself is taken to have ended with the Edict of Milan. In some formerly Roman territories it persisted, and it even intensified in Sassanid Persia. Though Christians were second-class citizens of the Cliphate, violent persecution under early Islam was not the norm. The treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries has varied significantly with time and place."
 * I hope someone can improve on that, and especially make it more succinct. Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that classification in regard to Islam. Apart from painting much too favourable a picture, it lays the emphasis on "persecution ... not". I'd propose:
 * "State persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire is taken to have ended with the Edict of Milan[79], but it persisted or even intensified in other places, such as Sassanid Persia[80]. Under Islam, Christians were second-class citizens and have at times suffered violent persecution.[81]"
 * The "persisted to this day" is covered enough in the following paragraph. I have also removed the Caliphate as the situation under local rulers was not that different. Str1977 (smile back) 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is an improvement on what is there now, and I do not object to its being added to the page. Before I do any more with it I need to go to the library. Tom Harrison Talk 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I am a little bit busy now. will join the discussion soon. --Aminz 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, there was a lengthy discussion over the usage of the word "second-class citizenship" in the Dhimmi article. The exact quote from Lewis is:

(I am exactly quoting most of the page 62 of Lewis 1984):

"In most respects the position of non-Muslims under traditional Islamic rule was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in the medieval Europe, not to speak of some events in modern Europe or, for that matter, the modern Middle East. But their status was one of legal and social inferiority or, as we would say nowadays, of second-class citizenship. At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society. But the phrase deserves a closer look. Second-class citizenship, though second-class, is a kind of citizenship. It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all. It is certainly preferable to the kind of situation that prevails in many states at the present time, where the minorities, and for that matter even the majority, enjoy no real civil or human rights in spote of all the resplendent principles enshrined in the constitutions, but utterly without effect. A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.

Under Muslim rule such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews. It ceased to be accepted when the rising power of the Christendom on the one hand and the radical ideas of the French revolution on the other caused a wave of discontent among the Christian subjects of the Muslim states, an unwillingness to submit to the humiliations or even to threat or possibility of humiliation, which existed in the old older….."

There are a few problems with this usage: Dhimmis were second-class subjects. The concept of citizenship is a modern concept, hence Lewis says it was something like second-class citizenship. Furthermore, as Lewis says this term means an unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society. "Legal and Social disabilities" explains it much better than "Second-class citizenship". Cheers, --Aminz 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be also good to contrast the persecution of Islam with that of other regimes. For example, we can mention that Christians rarely faced martydom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession. --Aminz 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aminz, in my opinion you are using that one source as a crutch, because it says what you want it to say, and as a sign of this I point to your arguments to authority by bulking up the status of Lewis. I am disenchanted with this approach, and would prefer to see a more in depth analysis of sources and thorough contribution to the article.  After all, there will come a time when someone else will stroll along and change the text.  Unless you have a well sourced and informative presentation, it will only last so long.  As such I don't see these contributions here as greatly improving the article.  Chase down Lewis' footnotes, and come here with several sources with various points of information.  Lostcaesar 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am also using Mark Cohen, John Esposito, Shahid Alam, Cleveland, William L, al-Qattan. I have read several books on this topic. The other POVs are that of some Muslims who would like to show that everything was perfect (i.e. Myth #1) and that of people like Bat Ye'or who would like to show that Christians were persecuted (i.e. Dhimmitude; Myth #2). When Cohen, Lewis and Esposito say that Bat Ye'or is distorting the history, we shouldn't use her as a source. --Aminz 22:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aminz, Lewis makes a good point, and it may be preferable to avoid any anachronism that goes with 'second-class citizen.' But we have to keep the article focused. This is the top-level article about Christianity. We have a page on Persecution of Christians, that this page should briefly summarize. There is another page, Historical persecution by Muslims, and of course Dhimmi, and others. This page, Christianity, should not address the general treatment of religious minorities by Muslims. If we were going to enlarge upon anything, it should probably be the treatment of non-Christians by Christians. Until I get to the library I will not be able to say much more than that. Tom Harrison Talk 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. But why only persecution? It is un-neutral. I think we should write about the status which is neutral. --Aminz 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am now at the university and am working on the general status of Christians under different rules. It may takes a bit. I'll try to write a couple of sentences for each of them. --Aminz 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

how come a good article uses websites like http://www.religionfacts.com/ as a source? --Aminz 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Easy access is probably part of the reason. At a glance, it looks okay. I see footnotes and citations to what look like reputable sources, and the statement that it is supporting is pretty non-controversial, I think. It says basically that the Romans persecuted the Christians. The only part of it that might not be common knowledge is that the Jews didn't have to burn incense to the emperor. Do you think the statement needs better support? Or do you object to religionfacts.com? Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the content. The article there wasn't signed. I am now looking for better sources. Hopefully, I'll find some. --Aminz 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to finish it now. Moved it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aminz/status/ I will add it back when completed. --Aminz 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Try reading Robert Spencer's work. He hardly ever articulates opinions, he's almost always just quoting Islamic law and Islamic scholars. It is a fact that Muslims always have and still do persecute Christians and Jews. Christians and Jews now treat Muslims with fairness in Christian majority countries (and in Israel), but Muslims do not reciprocate. I will cite Spencer to quote Sheikh Saad Al-Buraik, a Wahhabi cleric employed by the Saudi government. He has accompanied Crown Prince Abdullah (maybe King Abdullah now?) as a member of Saudi government delegations: "In accordance with Qur'anic directions to be 'harsh' or 'ruthless' to unbelievers (Sura 48:29), particularly those who war against Muslims, he concluded with ringing peroration. 'Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?'" (pages 98-99 of Onward Muslim Soldiers. He's quoting from the Saudi Information Agency, "Saudi Telethon Host Calls for Enslaving Jewish Women," Natonal Review Online, April 26, 2002. Nothing has changed since the middle ages. Arrow740 02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And what's so wrong about that? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just joking, of course. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is probably the element of Islam that is appealing to those violent, socially awkward young men in America who convert to Islam and go fight the US in Afghanistan. This sheikh is saying, if you rape Jews, you go to heaven! Imagine a non-Muslim saying something like that, and imagine a non-Muslim government paying someone to go on state TV and say something like that. Arrow740 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Islamophobes are not reliable source for wikipedia. --Aminz 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, he is not published by an academic publisher and has no qualifications as a scholar of Islam. But he is a best selling author. It might benefit you to read one of his books, if only to see what a thoroughly researched, thoughtfully reasoned book about the faults of modern Islam looks like. And you must admit that there are some flaws, such as the existence of figures like Sheikh Saad Al-Buraik. Arrow740 06:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Quran distinguishes Unbelievers from people of the book - Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Unfortunately, some individuals - particularly Wahhabists, feel that the line is not clear. --Strothra 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So it's OK to enslave adherents of Dharmic religions, right? If you wish to continue this discussion please use my talk page. Arrow740 06:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing which I have read that indicates that Unbelievers should be enslaved, but only that which notes that these people are, to use a Christian term, heathens. Christian and Jewish writings are also filled with such subjective attacks upon Pagan religions. I'm not going to continue this discussion on your talk page simply because I do not have the time to keep up with it and do not come on Wiki much anymore.  If you are interested in enslaved groups by the Ottomans - the primary Islamic empire responsible for this practice - you may wish to read some of the very good academic histories of this practice.  They give great insight into the social mobility of "slaves" within the Empire.  For instance, the great majority of slaves were not used for labor as the slaves of North America and ancient Rome & Egypt, but rather were used as caretakers of the home and as bureaucrats after given substantial periods of education. Before the formation of the empire, slaves were used as soldiers.  --Strothra 09:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which of course makes it perfectly acceptable, right? BTW, Roman slaves were caretakers and teachers as well. And you might have forgotten slave armies like the Janitchares (Muslims but as children taken from their Christian parents). 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the only person saying that slavery is perfectly acceptable. I can only tell you what is in the text - not what some people may or may not interpret it to mean. If you're looking for a "smoking gun" in the Quran, you will not find it.  People may interpret the same text to mean different things.  For instance, Darwin's writings were used by some to create a social theory which led to the horrid state-sponsored act of euthanasia in Nazi Germany and in the United States as late as the 1980's in which many "undesirables" were castrated, removed from the general population, and systematically eliminated.  --Strothra 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Quran endorses slavery, Darwin didn't endorse euthanasia. What a joke. Arrow740 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Quran does not explicity encourage the capturing anymore than Darwin encourages the social application of his theories yet both were interpreted as such. The Bible, however, explicity encourages slavery (Leviticus 25:44, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11 - implicit support of sexual slavery). The Bible does not encourage the taking of slaves, but it does not comdemn it either. The Quran is the same way - slavery is acknowledged as an institution, but not condemned nor promoted.  Once again, you will not find a smoking gun in either book.  You are attempting to impose a contemporary moral judgement on historical reality - it just doesn't work.  --Strothra 21:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. If something is objectively wrong (rape, the murder of children that you have captured after an assault on their settlement, etc) the it is wrong for all time. By the way here is the smoking gun: 33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty." I.e. it's OK to enslave women after a battle and then rape them. Whether or not the Bible condones slavery, I don't know or care, because I don't see Christians out there calling for the enslavement and rape of members of other religions like some Muslims do. Arrow740 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're interpreting that statement to mean rape and enslavement in just the same fashion that those who still call for things like that do. If you read that passage that way, you are no better than them for you have accepted their interpretation - you seem to think that all Muslims interpret the Quran in the exact same fashion - perhaps one should assume that all Christians interpret the Bible in the same fashion.  I will no longer talk to you. --Strothra 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My loss. Arrow740 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:
 * we can always change second-class citizens to something like "inferior, subjected status" to avoid the anachronism (however it is used in a reference)
 * even if Lewis' assessment of the state of those believing otherwise under Christendom and Islam were accurate (and believe me: it is not - it is comparing Islamic theory with Christian practice and cliches about the middle ages), it is not on-topic here. We are dealing here with persecution of Christians (one section) and persecution by Christians (another section)
 * also off-topic are any other comparisons to other regimes. Though that is a common tactic, it doesn't change anything about the facts.
 * The problem with the "Unbeliever" thing in some Muslims is that they can always claim that we Christians are guilty of Shirk and therefore should be slain. That is the bitter underside of the "Tritheism" debate we had here some months ago.
 * Name-calling is not helpful either. Esposito for instance is given some not very favourable epithets either.

Str1977 (smile back) 06:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has restored the POV tag to the section. However, we still haven't seen anything on the talk page that justifies this. Str1977 (smile back) 08:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, the section is shamefully POV (e.g. "Christians were more likely to use violence against Christian than against pagans, in disputes about the expression of faith and about rival claims of religious office. It has been said that more Christians were persecuted for their beliefs after 'edict of Milan' than before it." see 'Christianity and Roman Society' Cambridge university press p.115). There are some junk sources. etc. etc. I suggest we remove the article from "good article" status. --Aminz 10:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is it that the article says that you do not want it to say? Lostcaesar 11:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article says that after the 'edict of Milan' the persecution of the Christians were continued in Sasanids and later under Islam. That's incorrect. Christians were more engaged in violent persecution of Christians than Muslims. The article writes as if after the edict of Milan, Europe was a peaceful heaven for the Christians as the persecution "came to an end" I'll correct this soon. --Aminz 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I do not understand the problem. If all the passage says is that, after the edict of Milas, Christians were persecuted by Muslims, then the only relevant question is whether Muslims persecuted Christians after c. 310.  Whether Christians persecuted heretics or not is irrelevant in the absolute sense. Lostcaesar 11:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The passage was saying that the persecution of Early Rome was intensified under Sasanid and Islam. That's wrong. Christians persecuted whom they considered heretics. Who was heretic to them: whoever doesn't agree with them. The quote I've added explicitly says that "Christians were more likely to use violence against Christian than against pagans" It is a peer-reviewed published book by Cambridge university press.) --Aminz 11:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aminz, for actually stating a concern with the text (for the first time, I might add). However, you can very well read above that we were in the process of fixing this issue (which was raised by Tom and not by you). The passage never intended (and I don't think it did) say what you took it to read. But we should avoid such traps.
 * All the while you run roughshot over the references and add plain nonsense about the Middle Ages "approximately starting from the Edict of Milan" (a very very very minority position) and spoil the sections structure by adding claims about what was "more likely".
 * I will not speculate about your motives. Str1977 (smile back) 12:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the "approximately starting from the Edict of Milan" thing in a reliable source recently. But I'll remove it if you are not happy with it. --Aminz 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The common start of the MA is around 500, usually 476 AD. Such dates are always debatable but there is not reason to wrongly open that can in this article. "I saw this recently" is no valid reason to post it on WP. CT and the other link are definitely not "junk sites". But most of all, the info you try to include does not belong there and is, in its proper place and without aiming at covering up something else, already included. Str1977 (smile back) 13:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that the info I want to add doesn't belong here. It is about persecution of Christians under the Byzantium. Those websites are worthless for wikipedia. The articles are not even signed. --Aminz 13:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is "the Byzantium"?
 * This section is about persecution of Christians, in other words: people were persecuted because they were Christians! As deplorable as the actions of the Emperors Constantius and Valens were (Arians that persecuted the orthodox Christians) they did so because they thought them heretics, not because they thought them Christian (they were themselves). Hence, this falls under persecution of heretics, which is already covered under "persecution by Christians" - not very long ago, we had only one section entitled persecution, which was probably better, since the boundaries weren't that strict. Back then, the persecution section was structured: historical persecution of Christians, historical persecution by Christians, present day sítatuation (running either way).
 * Also, merely taking out a problematic wording almost never works. You removed the dodgy starting date but went on to talk about the Middle Ages and then switched back (textual, not in your thoughts) to "after the Edict".
 * A speculative witticism (there were not statistics around in 350) is not the most reliable basis for information, regardless of its accuracy. And apart from that it is not really required ... unless you want to paint Christians as the ultimate bad guys.
 * Also, depicting the Christians' situation under Islam as having "some social and legal disabilities" (as if they were natural like blindness) "the worst of which was the requirement of distinctive clothing" (laughable, considering that there were discriminated in building churches, giving witness etc. etc. etc.) is neither accurate nor is it needed, unless you want to paint Muslims as the ultimate good guys, who only "rarely" used persecution.
 * Either side has committed their fair share of violence, don't try to paint it otherwise.
 * I am sorry but that is my impression. Str1977 (smile back) 13:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. The linguistic quality of your edit also left room for improvement. Str1977 (smile back) 13:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Those who were persecuted were Christians but they considered them heritics because they had different religious opinions. The quote I wanted to add was saying exactly the same thing. What you are doing is 1. Original Research 2. Removal of sourced material. 3. That quote belongs to after the Edict. If Middle ages started later, then I am going in the better direction and not in the worst. 4. There were some limitations. As it is clear from your initial posts, you have not read any book on Dhimmi, so you are not in the position to judge whether it is accurate or not. If you would like to argue, you should back up your argument using reliable sources. The legal disabilities were not surely more than 6 or 7 issues. --Aminz 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The things about "heretics" is included in the sentence: "Christian governments have suppressed or persecuted dissenting Christian denominations" - it could be clearer but NPOV concerns have prevented us from using the word "heretics".
 * 1. Where is my Original research?
 * 2.+3. The one item of "sourced material" was exactly that speculative witticism that is neither reliable, nor relevant. I have heard it before and it is usually phrased as a question. As you are definitely not quoting literally, I cannnot tell here.
 * 4. Some limitation. Just because I haven't read Lewis doesn't mean that I never heard about the conditions. Stop behaving like you are the only "academic" here and everyone else in need of an education. And 6 or 7 issues are indeed quite a bit, especially since they encompass various parts of everyday life. And claiming that the worst was the clothing is hilarious. That only was a problem because of all the other things, as merely being recognized as Christian isn't that bad, if nothing follows.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 14:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Christians persecuting heretics, or anyone else, is irrelevant in this section. It is about Christian's being persecuted by non-Christians. Lostcaesar 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I quoted exactly from a reliable source literally: "Christians were more likely to use violence against Christian than against pagans, in disputes about the expression of faith and about rival claims of religious office. It has been said that more Christians were persecuted for their beliefs after 'edict of Milan' than before it." Those whom you call heretic were Christians. Okay? Of course, if they wanted to persecute someone, they would have persecuted those whom they didn't agree with. Secondly, this section is about persecutions of Christians in general.
 * To Str1977:
 * You said: "claiming that the worst was the clothing is hilarious" INFACT MY EDITS ARE NOT HILARIOUS, YOU ARE THE POV PUSHER IGNORANT PERSON HERE and you don't want to accept it because you are arrogant. SEE THE FOLLOWING SOURCES FOR MY EDIT: Hilary L. Rubinstein, The Jews in the Modern World: A History Since 1750, Oxford University Press US, Jan 2002, ISBN 0-340-69163-8, p. 7 and Lewis, Bernard. Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice, 1999, W. W. Norton & Company press, ISBN: 0393318397, p.131.
 * You said: As you are definitely not quoting literally, I cannnot tell here. I LITTERALLY QUOTED FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE. --Aminz 19:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the information is not relevant to the section, so this makes no difference. The section is about non-Christians persecuting Christians.  Thus, information about Christians persecuting Christians, no matter the source, is not relevant.  You will have to show my how it is relevant before we can move forward. Lostcaesar 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmh, of course the heretics were Christians ... all heretics are. But the thing they were persecuted for is not their being Christian but the "fine prints" of their Christianity. This is why we didn't include them as "persecution of Christians".
 * You were certainly not quoting literally in that instance where your quote was ungrammatical. I think it more likely that you misquoted or mistyped.
 * So I am ignorant? And arrogant? That might be a personal attack but I don't mind. If I sound a bit arrogant on this it is because your actions here have made me. Let me recount: You appeared here, tagging the persecution section, which only included a tiny mentioning of Islam as having persecuted Christians. Nothing more (other reasons came to you as the issue progressed). And since then you have consistently aimed at downplaying Islamic persecution and increasing the coverage of persecution by Christians, by various means. And you call ME a POV pusher?
 * I was very glad to have a good collaboration with LC this afternoon, a nice change from the way you proceed.
 * Goodday, Str1977 (smile back) 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because some experts say that another is wrong doesn't make it true. Bat Ye'or is a reputable scholar, and her work should be included. Arrow740 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Persecution by Christians
I have to say, this section has become very corrupted. Let me just point to some problems. It has no citations. It introduces denominationalism, which is totally anachronistic in this passage, and it a ecclesiological pov that should be stricken from the section. The inquisition and witch hunts are complex events over generalized here. There is a difference between a mob sweeping through the streets, a government backed suppression of heresy, and a legal trial for someone accused of a crime. It is not much of a model to work with. I will try and work a temporary fix to at least remove the over generalities and anachronisms to some extent. Lostcaesar 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Str seems to disagree with your change :/. Homestarmy 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "dissenting denominations" bit was supposed to cover both supression/persecution of heresies (and alleged ones, see Constantius) as well of the later denominations (that are basically successfull heresies) - the heresy bit got dropped somewhere, probably because of NPOV concerns. I will see what LC is coming up with and get back to this later. But I am hopeful. Str1977 (smile back) 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Guys let me say that I did not mean to step into anything controversial here, and I think, considering the matter above, that further controversies should be avoided. I though that this section would soon get more attention (as per discussion above), and I wanted to help a little in some preparatory work.  My point is that denominationalsim does not really describe either the persecutions of antiquity, or the wars which took on religious overtones such as the Schmalkaldic League wars, since none of these groups saw themselves as denominations or understood Christianity in denominationalist terms.  But if this is going to be controversial I will step back and bring all this up at a time when we can focus energy there.  Sorry if this has been a problem.  Lostcaesar 14:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to worry, LC. The one bit I would (and did) restore was the "denominational" in strife, as it pertains to that later historical period where we can safely speak of "denominations" and it was the conflict between them, apart of course from ulterior motives, that lead to wars. Str1977 (smile back) 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)