Talk:Islamophobia/Archive 6

Evidence for Crusades Link
Okay, for the third (or is it fourth) time, I again repeat the problems with the references: These are all the references I could find. deeptrivia 03:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Google Test: Seems to fail, since it gives hundreds of thousands of hits for things totally unrelated to the crusades.
 * http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/history/crusades2.html: Personal Propaganda Homepage
 * New Statesman Article: Talks about 20th century textbook authors' attitude towards Islamic civilization.
 * http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,683186,00.html: More credible, but does not claim any causal relation between Islamophobia and the crusades. Author a theologian and not a historian.


 * I think we are talking at cross purposes here: I'm attempting to explore links between Islamophobia and the Crusades, of which there are clearly some as we can see from the above sources.Perhaps the link doesn't belong in the history section, but it certainly belongs in the article.
 * I dispute the google test seemed to fail despite your alternative searches: clearly, there is only one sense in which one might use the terms "Islamophobia" and "The Crusades" together. The Google Test demonstrates that the link is a significant view and should be represented in this article. Axon 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You also missed this reference:


 * The New Crusades Constructing the Muslim Enemy


 * Which, as we can see from the abstract, clearly makes a link between the Crusades and the current climate of Islamophobia. Axon 09:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Runnymede Trust Definition

 * 1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
 * 2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
 * 3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
 * 4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
 * 5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
 * 6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
 * 7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
 * 8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

In order to validify the Runnymede Trust Definition, we have to check whether the eight statements above are the result of prejudice, i.e. whether they are true or false.

My bit: 1. Muslims are not a monolithic block, but the Islamic source materials, Qur'an and sahih hadith, are generally considered as unchanged and authoritative. Most Muslims feel more solidarity with other Muslims than with infidels, even if the infidels are not at fault. This is manifest by the outrage about the fate of the Palestinians (2000 dead) while mass murder by fellow Muslim in Darfur (200 000+ dead) is ignored. /

2. Islamic theology has a word, bid'a, for non-islamic cultural innovations from other cultures. Mainstream islamic theology rejects bid'a. Nevertheless, there is cultural exchange between islam and other civilizations, of course. Not because of islamic theology, but despite of it. /

3. From a Western point of view, islamic theology, islamic jurisprudence as well as islamic civilization do not match to Western standards at those points, e.g. hand-cutting, stoning, women get half of the share of men, killing of apostates, rejection of rational scepsis, killing gays. Refer: al-Ghazali.Counterexamples are welcome. /

4. Most Muslims think this way, as is manifest from opinion polls. They get their ideas from islamic theology. Both Qur'an and Sunnah differentiate between the Muslims and the infidels and consider the non-Muslims as enemies. /

5. The dominant fundamentalist POV does so. Moderate muslims don't want or cannot stop them. /

6. OK, valid, but it can be a manifestation of chauvinism as well. /

7. Unclear sentence. How can "hostility" justify discrimination? Besides: this is not a prejudice, this is discriminatory behaviour resulting from "hostility", which means, I guess, negative prejudice. So it doesn't belong in the definition. /

8. Hostility towards criminals, racists and neonazis is "seen as normal" too, because they harm their fellow human beings. It should be studied whether there is a valid reason for this hostility. Therefore I press for an analysis of supposed prejudices. --Germen 1 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)


 * No offence, but your dissent with the definition is irrelavant to this article and the discussion on this page. See WP:NOR. Axon 4 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)
 * No offence, but you use this "Runnymede Definition" to support your definition of 'islamophobia'. This makes it relevant. Please read your preceding comments. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
 * Start Quote from AxonI note you still maintain the defintion of islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Trust et al is "disputed" but have yet to provide any alternative defintions with citations. This would be most helpful, otherwise we have no reason to believe the defintion is contested.End quote from Axon


 * I don't really understand your point here: both my remarks you quote seem to back each other up. I asked you to demonstrate evidence that the defintion is disputed and you have yet to do so. Your own disagreement is not adequate evidence of dispute and, hence, irrelevant. Again, please refer to WP:NOR and other Wikipedia policies. Axon 5 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
 * I have demonstrated the Runnymede Trust Definition is inconsistent both with the dictionary definition and with itself. Hence it is disputed. You sound like a Middle Ager who refers to Aristotle instead of opening its mouth and counting, in order to find out how much teeth a horse has.--Germen 5 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
 * Have you? You have described why you feel the Runnymede Trust Definition is inconsistent. This is not the same thing. Once again, I advise you to familiarise yourself with the workings of Wikipedia and the no original research rule and why we have it. From one perspective, we are like the Middle Ager in that counting the horses teeth would be original research, but this is the nature of an encyclopedia and not a research journal. Axon 5 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
 * Logical deduction and synthesis is considered as legitimate for writers, see your link. Besides, I would like to point to more critic on the islamophobia concept as defined by the Runnymede Trust:
 * "Logical deduction and synthesis is considered as legitimate for writers" Not on Wikipedia it isn't and nowhere on the NOR page does it mention that original deducation and synthesis, especially as above, are permitted. Axon 5 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
 * http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/lnc/papers/Richardson_04_09_Islamophobia.doc
 * See also about the Runnymede Trust:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F
 * I don't think there are any hard and fast criteria for reputable sources but, given the RD is accepted by the EU and other official bodies, I see no reason why we should dismiss it as non-reputable. OTOH, a lot the sources you are citing hardly seem to match the criteria mentioned. Axon 5 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
 * This decision had not been taken by democratically elected officials. --Germen 5 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point: decisions taken by newspaper editors, science journal reviewers, etc, are not taken by democratically elected officials and are still considered to be of benefit to Wikipedia. The EU is an internationally recognised supra-national entity and I would argue that if it accepts the RD that that lends it enough credibility to make it reputable. What is more, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is mandated by EU parliament and council which are set-up by the democratically elected officials of the member countries.
 * I also note you have side-stepped my point that your own sources do not meet this criteria. Axon 5 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002093.php


 * I guess Amnesty reports about human rights violations in the People Republic of China should not be trusted as well because they contradict the official stance of reputable national and international bodies. Or personal accounts of Sobibor survivors because they contradicted Nazi Germany government statements. Yuck.--Germen 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
 * The hyperbolic comparison you make does not stand: AI is itself a reputable source of information so it would equal if not exceed the standing the Chinese government. This is the nature of NPOV.Axon 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
 * Surely, the first link contradicts the validity of the second link? Also, the second link does not actually seem to contradict Runnymede Definition Axon 5 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
 * OK,this one is more clear.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000552.html --Germen 5 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)


 * Again, the link above does not actually dispute the definition of Islamophobia. That aside from the fact it is the personal blog of hardline right-wing columnist Melanie Phillips.
 * Side Note: sorry to keep pestering you about this, but please ensure that all comments are properly indented and try not to interleave your comments with my own. It makes it very hard to determine what remarks you are responding to, if you have responded to my comments and so forth. Axon 5 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia policy is as such that sheer logic is considered inferior to the majority position, than I am afraid Wikipedia is not a credible source for information. --Germen 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
 * It would seem credible enough for myself. If you don't like the NOR rule you can take it up at the village pump or on the dicussion page on WP:NOR but, in the meantime, it is official policy and must be adhered to. I would also dispute that the arguments you make above are "sheer logic" and not only constitude a minority position, but a non-signficant minority position. Axon 5 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
 * The point of view that Jews were massacred in Nazi Germany was an insignificant minority position too prior to 1945. Panta rhei. But rest assured. Logically sound arguments cannot be suppressed forever. The Runnymede Trust and their proponents live on borrowed time. --Germen 5 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
 * See Godwin's Law. --Habap 5 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
 * Sigh Once again, the comparison is not valid: there is plenty of reputable historical sources to corroborate the claims of Holocaust survivors, their own testiomonies corroborate each other, etc, etc, etc. The POV of the Jewish survirors is a non-signifcant minority majority position. We have less reason to believe your "logically sound" arguments than we do the RD.
 * Sigh This is the situation NOW. Prior to 1945, it was not true. There were scarce reports of some Jews who escaped from Sobibor. They were neglected. As in this case, there is ample evidence from Qur'an, Sunnah, fatwa's, personal experiences and you name it that several so-called "islamophobic" statements are empathically true. Germen
 * In which case, you are correct: given your narrow example the NOR would apply then, not now. What is your point? Similarly, if a few individuals started claiming that they had seen UFOs, Wikipedia would not automatically start to believe their claims simply because, in a few isolated examples, a small group of individuals making extroidinary claims (about Nazi Germany, for example) turned out to be correct.
 * Is there evidence that islamophobic statements are empathically true? If so, please provide evidence from a reputable source to demonstrate said truth. What is more, please then provide evidence from reputable sources demonstrating that a similar line of reasoning as above to "disprove" the definition of islamophobia. Furhtermore, to demonstrate truth in Wikipedia I would not be able to find any counter evidence to dispute your claims about Islam above. As has been stated ad nauseum above, your own "reasoning" is not evidence of anything other than your individual POV. Axon 10:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is evidence.

Attitudes of Muslims: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=811 islamic sources: http://www.islam-qa.com PS: Axon, enjoy this. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007069.php


 * What is more, arguing over every single peace of Wikipedia policy seems pointless and counter-productive: you either accept wikipedia policy for the time being and work within the framework or you don't and you edit some other forum. 5 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
 * I am not adding original research here, we are validating information sources.
 * You think the Runnymede Trust Definition is qualified enough to make it to the introductory section. I gave you arguments why this definition fails at key points. While I think the definition can be mentioned in a separate paragraph (as is the case now), I do not think it is fit to make it to the introductory paragraph.

Germen81.58.29.90 21:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are using original research here. It really is simple: unless you can provide evidence the definition is disputed, then we have no reason to dispute the RD. The only evidence you have provided is your original "reasoning" above, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. No ammount of hand waving can avoid this. Axon 13:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Logical deduction from known sources is not original research. So it is acceptible for Wikipedia. QUOTE from Original Research --- Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. - END QUOTE--Germen 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are certainly wrong here, as has been explained earlier time and again. It is the most common misconception of the WP:NOR. The section you quote is completly out of context and mentions nothing about logical deduction: it refers purely to the collection of knowledge for the purposes of encylopaedic summary, and no ammount of text bolding will alter this. Axon 15:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Stay Strong
Stay strong my brothers, Yuber and Axon and Mustafaa. We will defeat the kafir and we will have the kalifah once more. It is only a matter of time. Fight them here and everywhere.


 * Constructive comments welcommed, snarky silliness will be ignored. If you want to see a more neutral version please get involved constructively. Axon 09:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Axon. Sounds like a user who knows one or two Islamic terms making a silly comment, nothing more. --Anonymous editor 20:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm deeply offended. If you're going to attack their objectivity by making snide remarks about their religion ... what am I, chopped liver? It's kind of like failing to make Nixon's enemies' list. :) BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)


 * I think it makes more sense to look at objective arguments than to take resort to name-calling. For the record: Yuber, Mustafaa, BrandonYusufToporov and "Anonymous User" are all Muslims. I am not a Muslim and I do admit I have a negative POV on islam: according to me the world would be a better place without islam.
 * I have valid, objective reasons for this view, i.e. Quran, Sunnah, fatwa's and Muslim records at several theaters. Therefore I believe a NPOV approach will be sufficient to defend my view. --Germen 1 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)


 * Um... theaters? Can you elaborate on this? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * I refer to Muslim political and militant activism in several countries in Africa (Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan etc.), Europe (Netherlands, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya/Dagestan, France) and Asia (Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordania, Turkey, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India (Kashmir etc.), Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines). Everywhere in the world Muslims harass, torture, rob, rape and intimidate non-Muslims or secular Muslims. Only areas without Muslims are free from this problem. --Germen 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)


 * An interesting perspective. I have to confess, though, I'm still muddled. By "theaters," do you mean "cinematic and/or dramatic exhibition venues" or "theaters of war"? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
 * The second meaning :) --81.58.29.90 21:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you admit the anonymous personal attack you made above, was you? How do you think making this kind of comment helps to resolving the issues here? It is frustrating getting blocked, but you only have yourself to blame for breaking the 3RR and taking petty revenge as above is a show of bad faith and a breach of Wikipedia policy. If you are responsible for the above remarks, I ask, as a gesture of good will, you apologise and confirm that you will not do this again.


 * What is more, the religous convictions of editors is also irrelevant to the discussion here. It should be discounted during discussion here. Axon 1 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
 * I did not make the first comment in this section. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)


 * And the religious convictions of authors influence their opinions about religion deeply, so their opinion about them as well. They are shareholders in the stock of their religion. Hope this will sink in your American brain. --Germen 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)


 * As do your own right-wing prejudices, but that is besides the point as regardless of whether you are muslim, a member of the BNP or all view poits in between, on Wikipedia your view carries equal currency. However, calling out the muslims as being somehow untrustworthy is racist, IMHO, and I ask you to refrain from doing so. What is more, your own personal attacks against me and assumptions about me do you no favors: FYI I'm a UK citizen. Axon 5 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
 * 1. Being critical about islam is not right-wing.

2. It is racist to attribute human qualities because of their race. Muslims are not a race, they are adherents of islam. So attributing qualities to muslims is not racist. 3. Muslims MUST defend their faith, it is considered a part of jihad, i.e. jihad with the mouth (see Bukhari). They cannot be neutral in this issue, otherwise they commit a sin and risk hell-fire. These are the facts, you can verify them in all complete sahih hadith collections. I do not say muslims are untrustworthy, I say most Muslims cannot be impartial regarding their faith. 4. So you are Briton. Too bad, even you haven't learned your lesson about islam now. Fortunately many of your countrymen are wiser than you.

--21:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If anti-semetism can be generally considered racist, I see no reason to not consider islamophobia racist either. Regardless, I find you ignoring my original point: your tactic of calling out the muslims is, if we cannot agree racist, prejudiced and bigotted and I ask you desist, as much for the sake of your own argument, as for the general civility of discussion on this page. We all have our own POV here, but the point is to get past these.
 * Racism means the belief in both human races and believing race is a major cause of human action. Antisemitism (when definied as antijudaism) is racist when it is directed to the Jews as an ethnic group, Muslims are not a race but adherents of the religion of islam, therefore anti-muslim bias is not racist. --Germen 14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The same argument you use for anti-semetism above can be used for Islamophobia. Axon 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The same argument cannot be used for anti-semetism. The Jews are not just a religion, they are also a race because their religion does not really seek to convert people and because they been isolated from the people in their host countries for long periods of time.  Racism is basically hating someone because of who their parents were.  Anti-semetism is hating someone because their ancestors were Jews.  Nazi's killed people who didn't believe in Judaism like for instance Edith Stein and Rose Stein just because the Stein's parents were born Jewish even though Edith Stein was a Catholic nun.  Current day anti-semites hate Jews for being Jews not because of their religious beliefs.  Most Islamophobes hate Islam as an ideology the same as many hate Nazism or Communism.  If hating Islam is racist then isn't hating Nazism also racist.  For that matter isn't hating Christianity or hating a president for being strongly Christian also racist.  Why aren't people like Sinead Occonor considered racist.  Why isn't criticism of Christianity racist?  Hating an ideology is not racist and it is not like hating a race.  People can change their religion or their ideology.  And religions and ideologies are just ideas.  They can be bad and they can cause problems.  That is the reason for hating them. Hate is a perfectly rational response to a religion that is causing some many problems throughout the world.
 * I would say most Islamophobes don't care about whether a persons parents are Muslim or not. I say that because I am an Islamophobe.  We care about a persons ideology.  I have no problem with people like Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  In fact I love them (especially Ayaan Hirsi Ali).  BTW by the criterion of Islamophobia that has been given shouldn't Ayaan Hirsi Ali be considered an Islamophobe even though she was born Muslim. Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be considered a self-hating Muslim? Also if Islamophibia is hating muslims because their ethnicity is Muslim then doesn't that mean Islamophobes should hate Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  All this doesn't make any sense and it doesn't make sense for a simple reason.  Islamophibia does not equal racism.  Islamophobes have everything in common with anti-fascists, anti-communists, and other haters  of ideology.  We have nothing in common with racists.  Also I don't understand why hating certain ethnicies and religions seems to be perfectly all right.  Why isn't anti-Americanism a form of racism.  Why isn't anti-Christianity racism.  It seems like left-wingers control these terms and they make them mean whatever it is they want them to mean.

--70.26.133.125 20:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we have learnt our lesson about Islam: in Britian we live with muslims closely, I have several muslims friends and generally the communities get on very well. Except for one or two unpleasant examples, there has been much support of the muslim community from all British quarters despite recent events. It makes me proud to be British, for once, and I thank you for noting it even if your point is in the poorest taste. Axon 13:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fortunately most British do not share your point of view and they are slowly awakening as we in Holland already have. Considering your utopic view on the peacefulness of our Muslim friends, I would like te refer to this report: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=811
 * Yes, fortunately. I guess you think the death of an innocent 48 year old Pakistani  man the other day to be very fortunate.  Actually, if you read further down the page you'll see Germen chuckling at the story.  You are becoming just as bad as the terrorists themselves.   How long before we see you killing innocents in revenge?Heraclius 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I deplore the killing of innocents. I do not advocate this kind of illegal actions. But it is a fact that a majority of Muslims support suicide bombings with conditions, support terrorist activity and wish islamic influence increases. See the report up here. Obviously, there is a huge problem within the Muslim community and we have the right to implore them to eliminate radical elements and thoughts in order to protect our own safety. Suicide bombers base their actions on the writings of Sayyid Qutb and other thinkers like al-Ghazali, which base themselves in turn on Qur'an and sahih Hadith. A critical attitude of the non-Muslim population towards this violent elements within islam is essential in order to promote the much-needed reform within the islamic community. This is not racist, this is common sense. --Germen 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Strawman much? I really don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about or why you would attribute such claims to myself. Please be warned: your incivil remarks may also constitute a personal attack.


 * Fortunately most British do not share your point of view Don't they? One study from an obscure source does not demonstrate this adequately to me. Axon 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting findings: most Muslims consider themselves Muslim rather than citizen of their country, most Muslims want Islam to play a bigger role in the world and in their country, support of suicide bombings is massive, .... (anyhow, read yourself). OK, anyhow, good luck with self-destructing your country. --Germen 14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My country seems to be doing pretty well at the moment and, from where I'm sitting, I can't see much sign of destruction, self-inflicted or otherwise, thanks. Axon 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see. The proof of the pudding is the eating. --Germen 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Solving the unsolvable
I voted to keep this page on its VfD, and it has since errupted into an edit war. I think I echo others when I say that articles such as this are doomed to POV, not becuase they are inherently so, but because of the number of people with axes to grind, subconscious or otherwise, who are determined to bend the article over and fuck any usefulness in an attempt to perusade us that Islam is right/wrong, leaving nothing encyclopedic or useful. Hence, I propose that we ask for someone who has no previous knowledge or experience of Islam to do some research from a few books and come up with a shorter, far more encyclopedic article. Failing that, the article ought to be stripped to its barest of bones, a few basic statements of fact (areas found in, organizations found in, a very brief history) and a dictionary definition that are indisputable. Any additions could then be discussed before being added. Stephen 30 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the above remarks are entirely helpful in settling the dispute. All constructive comments and edits you can make are gratefully received, but the more inflammatory editors (i.e. Germen and Yuber) no longer seem to be involved in this page and those who are left have been attempting to find a reasonable compromise by editing the draft and discussing references.


 * I'm not sure what a person can do about any "subconscious" biases they might have, but I'd still like to give the traditional Wikipedia method a go. I have posted this article for a RfC, although we are yet to get anyone helping out here from the RfC - not sure if I did it correctly! If you would like to create a seperate draft of your reduced version of the article in a sub-namespace here, however, that would be useful.


 * It is also worth pointing out that some editors dispute the "dictionary" definition of Islamophobia: nothing is quite so clear cut. I ask you familiarise yourself with the various points of dissent above. Axon 30 June 2005 09:31 (UTC)


 * Responding to RfC... Axon, do you really need another editor to tell you this?? Germen's argumentation has been ridiculous: he counters your good-faith attempts to find neutral references with cites from the lunatic fringe; he responds to your good-faith attempts to argue with ad hominem attacks that basically state that those coming from the Muslim point of view inherently lack credibility; he refuses to answer honest questions by accusing you of slander; he consistently makes outrageous Nazi analogies; he's probably sockpuppeting; etc. etc. etc.  You should get a higher-up to set him straight.  Dcarrano 02:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dcarrano on this. Germen is not acting in good faith and is apparently Islamaphobic himself. Sigh. --Habap 13:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have considered putting him up for an RfA especially considering his recent actions. I would like to give him a chance first, on this talk page, so any contributions you guys can make to the discourse above would be gratefull received. Axon 13:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think an RFC would be more suitable at this stage. 19:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is already an RfC for this page: do you mean an RfC specific to the user? Axon 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * People who cannot win by arguments are resolving to baser means of achieving their goal. I already have received several complaints of people that Islam-critical articles get censorec here, even when references and sources were sufficient.

--Germen 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
I'm trying to figure out if we need to keep the page protected. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, but I'm not sure I yet see consensus on what the page ought to say. Noel (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact this page is a version preferred by Germen, I would recommend we keep this page protected for now. Judging from the comments above, further edit wars would not be unlikely at this point. No real agreement has been made and disruptive behaviour is breaking out on pagesa round this one (see Prejudice (islam) and Prejudices (islam) and the VfD there) for example. Axon 08:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add a link to the external links section. Maybe someone could add it when the page is unlocked? Or if I remember, I'll come back and do it. It's here:


 * "Islamophobia blamed for attack" by Vikram Dodd, The Guardian, July 13, 2005

It's an article about a man from Pakistan beaten to death in the UK by young men who shouted "Taliban" before they killed him. The Muslim community is angry because the police registered the attack as racist, instead of Islamophobic. It might be an interesting point to make in the article &mdash; that incidents that are possibly Islamophobic are being wrongly classified and it's therefore hard to keep track of numbers. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * So, islamophobia IS something different than racism? From the horses' mouth. Hehehe. --Germen 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing me with SlimVirgin and the above is by no means evidence for anything except that some racist attacks should be more narowly defined as islamophobia. Axon 15:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not confuse you both. Sorry to correct you though. A "wrong classification" means wrong category. If islamophobia is a subsection from racism, the category is not wrong, but not specific enough. --Germen 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're not, stricly speaking, "correcting" me but interpolating what SV wrote (he said "wrongly classified" by the way which could mean an mis-sub classification). Perhaps that is what SlimVirgin meant, perhaps not, perhaps we'll never know, but what I do feel is that it is probably irrelevant to the discussion here. Axon 15:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When I said "wrongly classified," I was paraphrasing what was said in the article. I don't know whether the Muslim community in the UK wants a new category or a sub-category. Either way, they want Islamophobic incidents to be recorded as such, so they can keep track of how prevalent they are. Nothing else should be read into what I wrote. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Evaluation of supposed islamophobic claims
Several authors define islamophobia more specifically. According to them, Islamophobia encompasses the belief that Islam promotes

a religious fanaticism, b violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, c terrorism and rejects concepts such as

d equality e tolerance, f democracy and g human rights.

All Qur'an citations are from the English translation of Yusuf Ali of the "Noble Qur'an", considered as authorative by e.g. Diyanet. --Germen 10:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A Religious fanatism
This term, of course, is subjective. All religions with the possible exception of Zen buddhism praise adherence to their doctrines. The hadith contain a much-cited injunction to follow the middle path. Muslims which are adherents of more austere brands of islam, such as Salafism, define this middle path as the exact replication of Muhammads behaviour. Exceeding Mohammads example, e.g. praying seven times per day instead of five times, is considered extremism by this group.
 * Quotes and references from Salafi sources, please. Don't just summarize what you believe they believe to be "extremist."
 * Quote follows below: "Moderation in religion means following the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Exaggeration means trying to do more than he did, and negligence means not reaching that level. " - http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9466&dgn=4 --Germen 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of Zen Buddhism as a faith system that does not "praise adherence" to its "doctrines" may be oversimplifying things a little. Soto school and Rinzai school, and their respective offshoots, had and have a historic disagreement on the nature of the practice, and the role Zen played in promoting Japanese militarism before and during World War II is only now coming to light . BrandonYusufToropov 17:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a scholar of Zen, therefore I said possible. OK, what you said is well possible. Please note that Japanese Zen buddhism has some deviations of the original Chinese Zen. --Germen 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

B Violent tendencies towards non-Muslims

 * Qur'an 98:6: those who do not believe are the wordt of creatures


 * To the degree that you are deleting words from the middle of this verse, I respectfully maintain that you are MAKING THIS STUFF UP AS YOU GO ALONG.
 * The literal translation of this verse follows below. Qur'an 98:6 Those who disbelieve, among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. I did not add it because it is Wikipedia policy not to repeat available sources.
 * I'm not even going to bother checking the rest of your citations. Citing a translation and quoting it accurately, rather than rewriting the Qur'an on they fly, might help you move a step away from obvious bias. If that's a priority. BrandonYusufToropov 17:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you differ with me, cite your sources as per Wikipedia policy.--Germen 13:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Germen is, indeed, interpolating citations in an completely original way so, in the sense you use and for the purposes of Wikipedia, he is "making it up as he goes along"... in other words, original research (or what was once called here as spoon feeding) as I have pointed out above in the Runnymede Definition section. None of the "evidence" Germen has submitted is usable unless he can actually demonstrate with his own reputable citations that others have applied it in the same way (i.e. to "disprove" the RD). I think this is clear and, without such evidence, his original reasoning can be safely ignored. Axon 09:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you differ with me, cite your sources as per Wikipedia policy. I did cite my sources, therefore I did not do original research. These are quotes from the YusufAli translation of the "Noble Qur'an". --Germen 10:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please carefully read WP:NOR - the burden of proof to dispute the RD is with you, not I: please cite your sources that demonstrate that the RD has been disputed. Please do not ignore the points I raise above so I do not have to repeat myself. Axon 10:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete my comments, Germen. This is against Wikipedia policy! Axon 10:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If I did delete your comment, which seems the case, I did it by accident and I offer my apologies for the inconvenience. I have sufficient faith in the power of my arguments as to refrain from this kind of tactics. --Germen 14:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Quran 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind (the captives) firmly: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
 * If this is not a violent attitude towards non-Muslims, what is? --Germen 10:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Qur'an 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

C Terrorism

 * Qur'an 59:2 It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers. Take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

--Germen 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the modern definition of the word terrorism works so well with a translation that more accurately is represented by the word fear. And notice that it is Allah doing the casting here.Heraclius 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The language in this aya is quite convoluted (as is characteristic of the Qur'an, I would like to say). If you read this verse over and over, it gives the impression that Allah instills terror by means of a Believing army. Disputed, I know. In other verses Believers are seen as instruuments of Allah which cast fear in the hearts of the enemies of islam. Terrorism basically means: spreading of fear. --Germen 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True, a native Dutch speaker reading an English translation of the Qur'an would see it as convoluted. But let me ask you, how can God instill actual political violence into the hearts of unbelievers?  Are you seriously saying that with the definition of terrorism this sentence makes sense?Heraclius 15:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Heraclius, as I said, the wording is quite convolute and translations wildly vary, so I cannot be sure. But it goves me the impression that Allah instills fear in the hearts of the Unbelievers by means of the army of the Believers. Gosh, unbelievable 1.2 billion people take this crap seriously. --Germen 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, miost muslims are terrorists, so ..........

D Equality

 * Qur'an 4:32And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things.
 * Qur'an 4:34Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).
 * Qur'an 66:5It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you,- who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who fast,- previously married or virgins.

--Germen 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

E Tolerance

 * Qur'an 3:85 If anyone desires a religion other than Isl?m (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
 * This is about Muslim apostates.
 * Qur'an 3:87Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind [i.e. punishment of the Muslims towards ex-Muslims];-
 * Why are you adding your own explanations?
 * Qur'an 61:7Who doth greater wrong than one who forges falsehood against Allah, even as he is being invited to Isl?m? And Allah guides not those who do wrong.
 * This is about those who according to the Qur'an, reject the truth.
 * Qur'an 9:30The Jews call ?zair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

--Germen 10:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * [S?rah al-Baqarah: 256] Allah says: ?Let there be no compulsion in religion."


 * [S?rah ?l `Imr?n: 20] Allah says: ?So if they [unbelievers] dispute with you, say ?I have submitted my whole self to Allah, and so have those who follow me.? And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ?Do you also submit yourselves?? If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Allah?s sight are all of His servants.?


 * [S?rah al-M??idah: 99] Allah says: ?The Messenger?s duty is but to proclaim the Message.?


 * [S?rah Y?nus: 99] Allah says: ?If it had been your Lord?s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe??

Let me point out one more thing. Other religions clearly condemn people to hell for not believing. Islam says that if you are of the People of the Book, and you do good in your life, you will still go to heaven. Heraclius 15:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Say : O ye that reject Faith!, I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine."
 * There is an entire Surah on non-believers, Al Kafiroon, allow me to quote it all.


 * Heraclius, indeed, I acknowledge these verses exist. Unfortunately, mainstream islam has the doctrine of abrogation, which means that earlier verses are replaced by later verses. In this respect Islam is unique, no other religion has a God which retract his own words. The ayaat you quoted date from the early Meccan period and have been abrogated by the later, less tolerant Medinense ayaat.
 * Note, however, that a small minority group of Muslims reject the doctrine of abrogation (and the less pleasant interpretations of Qur'an associated with mainstream islam), see at . Unique is that they have the theological means to reject inhuman elements, while mainstream Muslim have not, or only weak hadith from e.g. Tirmidhi. --Germen 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This entire section is terribly formatted and hard to read--Irishpunktom\talk 15:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

F Democracy

 * Qur'an 33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman,

when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (i.e. only theocracy is allowed)
 * 5:44  It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Isl?m) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers. --Germen 10:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're totally missing the point of this section. This section is about the prejudice that Muslims are not able to live in democratic societies, not about what God said about Moses and what God said about disobeying him.Heraclius 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are wrong. These ayaat forbid cooperation with the making of any law which contradicts the Qur'an or the Sunnah, e.g. laws protecting the rights of homosexuals or protect freedom of religious conviction. When you vote for a democratic party, you are influencing the lawmaking process and hence have influence on this process. This makes voting an illegal endeavour unless you vote for a Muslim fundamentalist party which wants to implement Shariah. --Germen 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

G Human rights
The question whether islam promotes or objects to human rights can only be answered when it is known what is meant by human rights. When the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is used as basis, there exist several points in which this Declaration is at odds with some or all branches of Islam.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
 * Islam agrees on that all human beings are born free. Islam considers Muslims as more dignified than "People of the Book", which are considered more dignified than polytheist or atheists, the "worst of creatures" according to the Qur'an, 98:6.
 * Islam recognizes only brotherhood between Muslims. Brotherhood between Muslim and non-Muslim is forbidden according to the Qur'an (5:51).--Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
 * Islam distinguishes between Muslims, People of the Book and polytheists/atheists, see Article 1. Men have more rights than women, see article 1.
 * Islam does not recognize ethnic boundaries, although in some Hadith ethnic Arabs are seen as superior to non-Arabs.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
 * Islam recognizes four categories of people: Muslims, subjugated people (dhimmi's), infidels which are at (temporary, maximum ten years ) truce with the Muslims and infidels which are at war with the Muslims (e.g. have not a temporary truce with the Muslims).

Dhimmi's are discriminated (see dhimmitude, infidels are warred against, thus have no security.

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
 * The shari'ah allows slavery and the enslavement of infidel prisoners of war. Releasing slaves is considered meritorious in islam.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
 * Of course, which is torture or cruelty or not is subject to debate. Shari'ah prescribes punishments as flogging, stoning, cauterizing and cutting hands or feet. Most non-Muslims regard those as torture and cruelty.--Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
 * Islam agrees on this, although Shari'ah considers non-Muslims as less trustworthy than Muslims and women less than men. --Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
 * According to Islam, men and women are treated differently for the law, as are Muslims, "people of the book" and infidels. In general, women have less rights than men (exception: the obligation of the husband to support the wife) and Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims (exceptions: non-Muslims can change their religion without being killed while Muslims are subject to death penalty after doing so, Muslims are obligated to participate in Jihad when their leader orders them while non-Muslims aren't).--Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
 * Shari'ah allows all people, including non-Muslims, to appeal for a Qadi (judge). Of course, Shari'ah law regards the testimony of non-Muslims as less (or completely invalid) than that of Muslims and the testimony of women as less than that of men, so their chances to win the appeal are less. "False" witnesses, e.g. witnesses which cannot prove their accusations (e.g. because they are women or non-Muslims), are punished by flogging.

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
 * Islam agrees on that. Nevertheless, Shari'ah regulations are at odds with the international standards of law as we saw, hence its judgements often do not meet this requirements.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
 * Islam agrees on that. Of course, a shariah court discriminates non-Muslims and women, so they will be discriminated against impartially.

Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
 * Islam agrees on that.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
 * Islam agrees on that. Note, however, that actions not considered a penal offence in meny countries like adultery and leaving Islam are considered 'hadd' in islam.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
 * Shari'ah deals with all facets of human life, outside of the house as well as inside the house, so arbitrary interferes with privacy, family, home and correspondence. Islam protects against attacks against someone's honour or reputation: false witnesses are punished by flogging. Of course, Shari'ah rules of evidence apply, i.e. the witness of a Muslim man is more inportant than the witness of a Muslima or non-Muslim.

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
 * Non-Muslims were banned from the Hejaz (land around Mecca and Medina). Many Muslim countries ban Jews. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca or Medina.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
 * Islam agrees on this. Muslims are encouraged to leave infidel lands.

Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
 * Islam agrees on this.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
 * Shari'ah does not allow a Muslim to be extradited to a non-Muslim country.

Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
 * Islam agrees on this, it must be noted that islam recognizes only the islamic Ummah as the nationality of a Muslim.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
 * Many islamic countries, e.g. Morocco and Turkey, have a hereditary nationality which cannot be revoked. When islam ios considered a nationality, as Islam does, islam denies this right to Muslims. When a Muslim wants to leave islam, he is considered a murtadd (apostate) and according to Shari'ah, must be subjected to death penalty.

Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
 * Within islam, men are allowed to have up to four wives and an unlimited number of concubines or sex slaves. Women can only marry with one man. Muslim men can marry Muslim, Christian and Jewish wifes, Muslim women only can marry Muslim men. The wife must obey the husband. Both can divorce at will, however the woman who divorces is considered as inferior, unless she divorces her husband because of his apostacy.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
 * islam agrees on this, but "the silence of virgins is considered as consent" (hadith).

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
 * islam agrees on this. Exceptions are families of captured infidels, the marriage is considered annulled, children can be sold at will and the wife can be kept as a sex slave after she has menstruated in order to exclude pregnancy.

Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
 * Islam agrees on this, with the exception of the property of infidels at war with islam and apostates.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
 * Islam agrees on this, note however that apostacy and war conditions are considered non-arbitrary deprivement of property.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
 * Islam denies this right to Muslims. A Muslim who leaves islam muist be sentenced to death. Non-Muslims who live under the protection of islamic authorities, dhimmi's, are not allowed to convert Muslims to their religion. According to shari'ah, dhimmi's are not allowed to build new churches, temples or synagogues.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
 * Islam recognizes this right with the exception of questioning islam, Muhammad or the shari'ah.

Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
 * Islam recognizes this right.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
 * Islam recognizes this right, with two exceptions. Muslims are compelled to join a jihad effort when they are called upon by their leaders. Muslims are not allowed to leave islam, so if islam is considered an association, this can be interpreted as compulsion.

Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
 * Islam forbids the rule of a non-Muslim over a Muslim. There exists a limited self-rule for non-Muslims.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
 * Islam recognizes this right, however limited rights for dhimmi's apply.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
 * According to Islam, the will of Allah shall be the basis of authority of government. Leaders may be appointed by democratic procedures, but they are not allowed to introduce laws which contradict the teachings of the Qur'an or the Sunnah.

Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
 * Islam recognizes this right for Muslims, within the restructions of islam. Non-Muslims have limited rights.

Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
 * Islam recognizes this right for Muslims.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
 * Islam does not recognize this right explicitly. Introducing this right, however, does not violate islamic teachings.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
 * Islam recognizes this right.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
 * Islam does not recognize this right explicitly. Introducing this right, however, does not violate islamic teachings.

Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
 * Islam does not recognize this right explicitly. Introducing this right, however, does not violate islamic teachings.

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
 * Islam does recognize this right to some degree. Children should take care for their parents. Widows or divorced women can marry to married to unmarried men. Old people without children, unattractive women and orphans are often forced to become beggars.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
 * Islam knows a limited period (several months) in which the father should support children, even after divorce. After this period expires, no conditions apply.
 * Shari'ah does not recognize children born out of wedlock. Their mother can be sentenced to stoning, as the punishment of wedlock is death.

Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
 * Islam agrees on the right of every individual to learn about islam. Sciences which violate islamic teachings are problematic. Islam does not recognize the other rights per se, but they are not in conflict with islamic teachings.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
 * Islam restricts this right to education in islam. Islam considers only other Muslims as legitimate friends and brothers.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
 * Islam agrees on this.

Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
 * Islam restricts this right to activities which do not interfere with islamic tenets.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
 * According to several fatwa's, islam does recognize this right.

Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
 * War against other islamic nations is not allowed. According to islam, peace with infidels for longer than 10 years is forbidden. The truce can be broken if this favours the Muslim cause, see Treaty of Hudabya. A truce is allowed only when this truce improves the strategic prospects of the Muslims.

Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
 * Islam supports this statement.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
 * Islam restricts this rights.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
 * Not applicable

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
 * Not applicable, unless this interpretation is seen as islamophobic. --Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Solving the dispute
BrandonYusufToropov has proposed to start an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding this page. I have agreed to Brandon's proposal.

I think we must agree on:
 * the definition of islamophobia
 * because agreement on this definition likely will imply the dictionary definition, we must decide which prejudices about islam are obviously wrong and hence real prejudices (thus can be classified as islamophobia) and which are partially or completely right and hence not a prejudice=>islamophobia; these pseudo-prejudices must be put in a separate "disputed" subparagraph
 * use the definition of islamophobia to decide which is real islamophobia and which is not. Disputed incidents of islamophobia must be moved to a "disputed" subparagraph.

Brandon (or others), what is your proposal? --Germen 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the above represents an attempt to resolve the dispute: unless I am misinterpreting you, your position on using original research does not seem to have actually changed. Once again, unless you can supply evidence that definitions are directly disputed or contradicted using primary and secondary sources there is no basis to assume any of the definitions are disputed. Judging by his remarks, I think Brandon agrees with me on this (Brandon, can you confirm your position?). If you can supply such sources I will concede, but you have so far failed to do. If you cannot, I ask that you concede on this point and accept the Runnymede Definition, even if you disagree it should apply.


 * I will agree it is clear that there is some dispute over how Islamophobia applies or who it applies to, or that it applies at all. However, this is not the same as disputing the definition.


 * Also, we do not "agree" on the definition (as you like to keep mentioning, Wikipedia is not a democracy): we summarise the definition from sources. Similarly, we do not decide what are "right" or "wrong" prejudices (see NPOV) - obviously many consider these genuine prejudices and it is not up to us to determine definitively what are "pseudo-" or not, particularly using the loaded terminology above. Axon (talk|contribs) 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, the sources contradict. The Runnymede Definition contradicts both Islamic religious sources as well as the dictionary definition. This makes it POV and problematic to use the Ruinnymede Definition as the sole source for defining islamophobia. Do you have any valid argument against using the dictionary definition in which we all seem to agree and which does not contradict common parlance or islamic theological sources? --Germen 11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do your sources directly contradict, or do they contradict only if taken into consideration with your own original research above? If the former then please summarise them here so I can examine them myself. If the later then we have not really progressed in the dispute at all. It is not POV to represent all significant views and, without evidence of actual direct dispute of the definition, the view that the RD is invalid is a non-significant minority view and not covered by WP:NPOV.
 * You misunderstand the point. I do not say the RD view is not worth mentioning, I say the RTD does not qualify as an universally valid definition. Call it fuzzy logic if you like. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet, you are attempting to demonstrate that the RD is "wrong", you even make reference to "right" and "wrong" above. Again, if you think there is an alternative definition of Islmaphobia that perhaps contradicts the RD then please cite the reference. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point about the dictionary definition: the two seem mutually compatible. They only seem to contradict if you use your specious reasoning above. I'm not sure what you mean by common parlance, or which islamic theological sources deal directly with the RD. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Runnymede Trust Definition:
 * 1 Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
 * 2 Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
 * 3 Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
 * 4 Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
 * 5 Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.


 * 6 Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.


 * 7 Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.


 * 8 Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.


 * 1: islamic theology has a derogatory word for innovation: bidah. So by virtue of its theology it is unresponsive to change. Changing islam makes one a murtadd.


 * 3: islamic law treats men and women differently, hence it can be called sexist as per definition of sexism. Several hadith and a Qur'anic verse forbids too much inquisitive questions about e.g. who created Allah, hence the epitome irrational may be correct to some extent (it must be emphasized that reasoning by Islamists usually is rational, as long as their axioms are not questioned). Islam forbids innovation (bidah) which contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah and idealizes a half-nomadic past,  hence has less impetus for progress than e.g. the West. According to common Western civilizational standards, Shari'ah punishments such as flogging, stoning, killing gays and the amputation of hands are seen as backwards and primitive. Whether this is true or not is of course dependent of your preferred definition of "barbaric".


 * 4: Islamic law recognizes two allowed states of relations between the Muslim state and non-Muslim states: WAR or TRUCE (the latter typically not longer than 10 years and only when the Muslim state is too weak for a successful offensive war). Muslims identify themselves primarily with the Muslim ummah as exemplified by a recent worldwide opinion poll, see above).


 * 5. Islam is both a political system as a religion. This makes it unique among religions.

Repeating those four marked statements is "islamophobic" according to the Runnymede Trust Definition. But it is the stance of orthodox Islam and most Muslims. QED.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but none of that is actual evidence of anything except your own perspective on Islam. You are clearly avoiding providing direct references and I ask you once again to provide links and references to sources that directly contradict or dispute the RD.Axon (talk|contribs) 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I will add them. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They have been added. For most people this evidence suffices. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So I will summarize the points:
 * The Runnymede Trust qualifies for the definition of a lobby group, hence is not an objective source as per Wikipedia standards.
 * Four of the eight points of the Runnymede Trust Definition are identical to orthodox islamic dogmas.
 * One of the eight points of the Runnymede Trust Definition, rejection of critics, is not exclusively islamophobic, but holds for all over-self confident people, including many Muslkims themselves regarding criticism of Islam.
 * --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, you did not add any evidence except a link to a report on "attitudes" that makes no mention of Islmaophobia or the RD. The rest of your thesis requires further citation that is completely lacking.
 * This report proves the majority of Muslims see themselves as Muslim rather than national of their country or world citizen, thus warranting the so-called "islamophobic prejudice" about islam as a monolithic block. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Does it? It only demonstrates the attitudes of some muslims and you have yet to provide evidence of the rest. Axon (talk|

contribs) 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This report deals about the majority of Muslim populations (e.g. Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt have the largest Muslim populations in the world) and shows a clear majority for the points I mentioned. So you must read better and be less POV. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What is more, you claim "Runnymede Trust qualifies for the definition of a lobby group" and that this somehow doesn't make it an objective source, quite aside from the fact that there are no such thing as objective sources and without providing any evidence that it actually lobbies. You just making blind assertions and expecting the reader to just believe you. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Runnymede Trust tries actively to influence politics and lawmaking process. This is stated in the article. A lobby group is defined as any organisation which tries to influence government political decision process or lawemaking process. Thus, (Runnymede Trust.IsLobbyGroup)==TRUE, in Java parlance. In the article I state it less boldly. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding me, right? Firstly, that's incorrect Java. Secondly, it demonstrates nothing other than your own POV: (Germen.IsWrong == true) See I can do it too! Preposterous. You are clearly being obstructive here. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, on Java you're more qualified than I so I take your word on that. :) However, you seem to evade the discussion on the political and lobbyist group nature of the Runnymede Trust. Can you prove with arguments that the Runnymede Trust is not a lobby group but a think tank? --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 08:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Objective sources do not exist but there exist less and more objective sources. A dictionary editor is more objective than a political activist group like the Runnymede Trust.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it? I don't think a definition accepted by various government bodies is any less reputable and objective than a dictionary defition - they would both seem to complement each other. Again, I find you are being uncompromising and onbstructive and continued debate on this topic does not seem to be getting anywhere. You would seem to be looking for an argument on this page, rather than a genuine attempt to discuss anything, so I'm going to await the results of the RfC and see what happens then. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So acceptance by a government body makes something reputable, isn't it? You mean: history is written by the winners? About three centuries ago, pi as estimated to be 4 by a government body. Zeno of Elea has treated the Runnymede definition with some minor modifications to my POV. I don't know what the state of affairs is in the UK, but here in Holland we think the notion of truth changing when a new government comes into place is ridiculous and undesired.
 * As I said repeatedly, you do not logically validify the argument because of your biased point of view. This is obstruction, as you continue to obstruct any attempt to solve this editing controversy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 08:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Islamophobia effort by Malaysian Prime Minister
On 21 July, 2005, during a major policy speech at the UMNO General Assembly, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he felt it is his duty to prevent Islam and its symbols from being used to propagate violence. He set three missions for himself ? continuing to remind the world community to understand the root causes of terrorism, explaining that Islam is a religion of peace and opposed to violence, and showcasing Malaysia as a modern Islamic country and a safe place to invest and visit. Prime Minister Badawi is also the current chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. (The Star) (Iranian Quran News Agency)(Islam Online)


 * Please add the above information to the article after the protection is lifted. The article has been protected for what, one month?!?! -- Vsion 00:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of submission, as manifested by the literal meaning of the Arabic word al-Islaam. Spreading inaccurate statements about islam cannot be seen as anti-islamophobia efforts, but rather as whitewashing. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. Are you saying that there is an "inaccurate statement" of the Prime Minister's speech, or the Prime Minister made an "inaccurate statement" on Islam? Can you point out what is this "inaccurate statement"? Can you point out what is the "whitewashing" (implying denial) effort you mentioned? Is it therefore your position that Islam is a religion of violence? Vsion 19:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The latter: calling islam a religion of peace is incorrect. Islam means submission. If there is submission to Islamic authority, violence it not necessary according to islam. It can be described as Pax Islamica. Mahathir made such a statement (i.e. islam is peace), the statement was incorrect however.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 07:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The given quote makes no mention about "submission". It simply says "...Islam is a religion of peace and opposed to violence ... ", which you said is incorrect; it follows then that Islam is a religion of (or espousing) violence. This is your position, right? -- Vsion 10:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My position is that Islam is a religion of peace when it has the upper hand and there is no resistance against islam. When islam is not in such a position, violence is one of the accepted means to achieve this objective, when other means fail. So peace is not a core tenet of islam and characterizing islam as a religion of submission to Allah is more accurate. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't contradict with Badawi's statement or Mahathir's statement in any significant way. In fact, you partially agree that "Islam is a religion of peace" in the very least. --Vsion 00:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the page has been protected for a while but as soon as it is unprotected I will endeavour to add the above. Any input you can give the resolve the dispute on this page would be gratefully received. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

An overt tactic to ostracize anyone critical of Islam
DEFINITION OF PHOBIA: an irrational fear

RUNNYMEDE DEFINITION OF "ISLAMAPHOBIA":

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
 * Is it irrational to believe that Islam is a rigid religion, deeply rooted in the past, and based on static scripture that do not change with time? I think the evidence in the world around us speaks for itself. It was only four years ago that the Taliban were stonning people to death for having sex and chopping people's hands off for theft. Clearly, huge portions of the Muslim world still adhere to an Islam that is static and has been unpresponsive to change. The authors of this "defintion" have implicitly declared that Islam is dynamic and responsive to change without having proved their claims, and have gone on to labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a xenophobic "Islamaphobe." This seems more like an extreme form of POV pushing and thought control that is being endorsed by Wikipedia.

2. Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
 * Islam is inevitably seen by non-Muslims as seperate and other. Just as Muslims see pagan religions like Hinduism to be seperate and other.

3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
 * Claiming that Islam is not barbaric, irrational, primitive or sexist is a big claim indeed. The Qur'an condones terrible forms of torture, such as lashing, amputation of hands, bleeding people to death by amutating limbs, and crucifiction. It is an affront to human reason to claim that such practices are not cruel and remicient of a barbaric age. It is an affront to human reason to claim that anyone who thinks that Islam is irrational is a xenophobe suffering from irrational fears. Similarly, people with different idea of what is primitive and what is not could easily see Islam (and indeed religion itself) to be primitive. These are not issues that have anything to do with xenophobia or irrational fear. Similarly, it is widely believed that Islam is sexist. The Qur'an condones the beating of women, and states in no unclear terms that the testimony of a woman is worth half the testimony of a man. Islam was invented in an age when sexism was the cultral norm, and this is a sociological phenomenon that is a part of the religion of Islam. Again, it is unjust to accuse people, who point out these facts, of being xenophobic. Mainstream Islam has a problem with equal rights between the genders, and accusing people who say so of "Islamaphobia" does nothing to address the fact that this problem exists. Claiming that people who see Islam as "inferior to the West" sounds more an indication of an inferiority complex than legitimate concerns about real xenophobia.

4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
 * Many fundamentalist Muslims believe that Islam is violent, aggressive, threatening and supportive of terrorism. Does that mean that fundamentalist Muslims can be Islamaphobic? Wikipedia articles such as offensive Jihad, militant Islam, Islamist terrorism, and so forth, demonstrate that Islam can be violent, aggressive, threatening, and even supportive of terrorism. These people seem to be in denial of the fact that Islam has violent and aggressive strains, and that that such strains have a long standing historical precedent. Pretending that such strains do not exist, and labelling anyone who points them out as an "Islamaphobe," in an outrageous attempt to control human discourse and does nothing to solve the of extremist militant Islam.

5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
 * See Islam as a political movement, Islamism, Jihad, and offensive Jihad. I can't believe that someone would have the nerve to suggest that anyone who sees Islam as a political movement is an "Islamaphobe." This right here proves that the Runnymede defintion of "Islamaphobia" is an extremist POV that and should not be adopted as a definition by Wikipedia.

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
 * One can only imagine what "criticisms made by Islam" means. What ciriticisms of the West are made by Islam? Perhaps the authors of this ridiculous document meant "ciriticism made of the West by Muslims?" Even if that is what they meant, it is not what they wrote, and a such it makes what they wrote useless.

7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
 * Now I have no objections to this particular defintion. This accurately and succicintly describes the problem of Islamaphobia, and it is a just defintion.

8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
 * I also agree with this particular defintion. These last two defintions seem to be a good defintion of Islamaphobia.

--Zeno of Elea 14:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the Runnymede Test Definition requires that in order for something to be considered Islamophobic, it must show evidence of all eight criteria. Thus, if a statement didn't indicate that the speaker felt Islam is a "monolithic bloc", then it would fail to be considered Islamophobic. So, that crossing the line of any individual component (for example, that it is a political movement) does not make a statement Islamophobic. I think this is the heart of the contention over the definition and perhaps a clarification (after page protection is removed) that all components must be present for a statement to be Islamophobic would be prudent. --Habap 13:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You believe. In Wikipedia articles there is no place for belief, only for primary of secondary sources supporting a statement, WP:NOR. Do you have proof that the Runnymede Trust Definition requires all eight points to be true in order to be classified as islamophobia? Note also the abyssmal grotesqueness of this interpretation: calling islam primitive and terrrorist is not islamophobic according to you, but describing islam by all eight terms mentioned in the RTD is islamophobic. It would be a pretty useless definition this way, even more useless than it already is, unless for silencing non-Muslim people which repeat established islamic dogma's.  --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 18:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My contention is that the first 6 of these 8 criteria are irrelevant to "Islamophobia." They have no place in any rational definition of such a word. Imagine if I said that an Islamophobe is a person who is 1. prejudiced or discriminitory against Muslim and 2. doesn't believe in Allah. Criterion 1. makes sense, but criterion 2. is ridiculous. It's true that if both 1. and 2. apply, then we do have Islamaphobia, but we also have it when only 1. applies. It wouldn't make much sense to argue for keeping criteria 2. just because you insist that both 1. and 2. must be present to qualify as "Islamophobe." It makes absolutely no sense to have a definition of Islamophobia that requires a dozen conditions to be present before one qualifies as an "Islamophobe." The only definition of Islamophobia that is needed is: "7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims." It's as simple as that. The rest of it is irrelevant nonsense clervly designed to stiffle any critical thought on Islam. --Zeno of Elea 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your argument now. In order to further understand what we ought to have in here, I looked at Arachnophobia and also Phobia itself. One interesting thing I found in the Wikipedia entry on phobias is that in order to be a -phobia, the fear simply has to exist and the rationality of it is not relevant. In particular, when discussing the non-clinical uses of the term, we find...
 * A fear or hatred is not always considered a phobia in the clinical sense because it is believed to be only a symptom of other psychological problems, or the result of ignorance, or of political or social beliefs. In other words, unlike clinical phobias, which are usually qualified with the word "irrational", phobias of attitude usually have roots in social relations.

Interestingly, in the discussion of Homophobia, the term is noted as indicating irrationality (especially by those labelled with it). When viewed on dictionary.com, we find the suffix defined:
 * An intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specified thing: xenophobia. (emphasis mine)

Perhaps those first several conditions are worthless, as they only indicate how the hostility is evidenced, but it appears that the rationality of the fear is not the determinant of whether it can be considered a phobia. I think that has been the root of all the problems - Germen has shown at great lengths that Islamic teaching include fear-inducing elements, but that shouldn't be the issure here.... --Habap 14:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference between religious discrimination and freedom of thought
In as much as "Islamaphobia" refers to injust discrimination and xenophobia against Muslims, there is no need to ask whether Islam is primitive or advanced, static or dynamic, barbaric or civilized. Muslims must be seen as individuals. One can object to Islam in its entirety without being xenophobic or discriminatory towards Muslims. Many people who read the Qur'an and hadith feel that Islam is a religion that is rigid, violent, primitive, sexist, etc. People have the right to their own opinion, and this article should not turn into a theological debate about what exactly shariah or the Qur'an says. Like I said, it is possible to object to a religion without being xenophobic towards its adherents. For example, I am generally opposed to Islam, but that does not mean that I am generally opposed to Muslims. We are all entitled to our own opinion about various ideologies and religions. But it is not ethical or even rational to hold discriminatory or xenophobic views towards the adherents of a major world religion. That should be the extent to which this article criticizes other people's beliefs as being "Islamaphobic." This is not the place for arguing about Qur'an verses, this is about the right of Muslims to equality, justice and freedom, regardless of whether or not they believe in secular ideals of equality, justice and freedom. --Zeno of Elea 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Examples
''On 26 July 2005, a trans-Atlantic flight from Los Angeles to London was diverted to Boston when passengers were nervous about three Pakistani passengers acting suspiciously. The trio were detained and then released after questioning. They were later allowed to take another flight to London. (Guardian)''

This is an example of Islamophobia, which is real and around us; it affects the lives of ordinary innocent people. Please add the above text, after protection is lifted. --Vsion 03:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree that this represents Islamophobia. The article doesn't detail the suspicious activities or the reactions on the flight (it only states that with one of them in First Class, they were moving between there and the normal seats), it is hard to tell whether the diversion of the flight was unjustified. After landing, it was found that nothing was amiss, but without having been on the flight, we cannot know whether the same would have happened if the three men were middle-aged WASPs. As such, without further detail, labelling this event Islamophobic is under-informed POV. --Habap 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If there are more details, why didn't the authorities, the airline or other passengers tell us more? As it stands now, the only thing was that a first class passenger moved to other section (maybe a few times), I didn't know there's a flight rule against that. --Vsion 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, the cabin crew will politely tell you that it is not permitted. Disobeying the directions of the cabin crew is a federal offense. As it stands now we know that they were acting suspiciously. Until further evidence emerges that it was not suspicious, it's not fair to say that the reaction was Islamophobic. I'd quote some things, but not sure any say anything specifically about what was reported Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR), Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, which may only be a slice of what actually happened. Until we know more, speculation on the motivations of the cabin crew are mere speculations. Also, note that while the passengers were reported as Pakistanis, no indication of their religious choices were provided. It may be Pakistani-phobia. --Habap 19:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Then just leave the text in this talk page, as it already is. --Vsion 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection 2
I have just checked again, to see if some agreement has been reached here, but although the discussion seems to have gone quiet for a bit, I still don't feel that I see evidence that people have come to some sort of agreement on the content of this page. Lacking that, I'm concerned that unprotecting the page will result in an immediate resumption of the edit war. Or would people rather have it unprotected, and see how it goes? Comments? Noel (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --Zeno of Elea 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would agree the dispute is still raging. Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response. I would recommend keeping the page protected in the meantime. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, Noel, user:Axon consistently obstructs any sensible effort to come to a more objective and neutral version of this article by continuously referring to the arbitrary Runnymede Trust definition of islamophobia as the sole authorative definition and trying to get people banned who disagree with his narrow POV. Note that a group has been created which addresses this persistent Wikipedia problem. I suggest a binding effort of dispute resolution about this page is undertaken.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response." User:Axon, I dispute your claim that you have exhausted all attempts to resolve "the dispute." The dispute is that you want to keep the Runnymede Trust definition of "Islamophobia," other do not. I have commented on the definition and tried to propose a better definition, yet you have no responded to my comments against your opinion. As far as I am concerned, you have made absolutely no attempt to resolve the dispute. Furthermore, your RfC/RfA is an unrelated dispute between you and User:Germen that has nothing to do with this article. --Zeno of Elea 11:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see the RfC and RfA for evidence of my repeated and continuing attempts at dispute resolution. If you feel you have any evidence that contradicts them, please cite them, otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about in the above. The RfC and RfA are directly related to behaviour regarding this article and I also supply sufficient evidence of this. if you feel you are being left out of the dispute I suggest you contribute constructively to the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere, and by reviewing the discussion above to avoid repeating discussion. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

 * This article has been protected for far too long. Protected pages considered harmful.  I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

How recently does a word have to made up to be considered a neologism?
Also, what other articles on Wikipedia have the word neologism in their opening sentence?Heraclius 19:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * neologism cites examples going back to 1727, but the article is confusing neologisms with loanwords. I would say neologisms remain neologisms until they appear in a language's major dictionaries. Say, Islamophobia will cease to be a neologism once it is printed in the OED. The best way to tell it's still a neologism is that people cannot agree on its definition, otherwise we would just cite the definition of a venerable dictionary. dab (&#5839;) 20:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, or considering replacing "neologism" by an additional sentence such as "The concept and definition of islamophobia are disputed." --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 21:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weren't we here 2 months ago? You have yet to demonstrate the definition is disputed, as per mediation. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Germen, you seriously seem to have issues with grasping WP:NOR. An editing dispute on Wikipedia does not warrant mention in article space. Disputes must be notable, too, for inclusion in articles. Document the dispute, but if you are just unhappy, personally, how the term is used, I am afraid this will have no place in the article (or do you suggest a wording "some Wikipedia editors have expressed concern about these definitions"?) I am still not able to see any evidence that there is a notable dispute about the term among scholars, or even "media pundits". Sure, calling someone an islamphobe will always be pov, which is why we have no "list of islamophobes". This doesn't mean the meaning of the term itself is disputed. It's pretty much the same with homophobia and similar term. I fail to see either the point you are trying to make, or what is so bad about the definitions on the page. I am sorry if terminology as used in contemporary English makes you unhappy, but unless you can show there is debate about usage of terminology at some modest level of notability, this is an issue of your personal taste of language. dab (&#5839;) 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * also, the definition of the term is quite straightforward "phobia of Islam". More detailed discussions are just attempts at cataloguing symptoms, and dividing phobic behaviour from informed concern or misgivings, between which it will of course always be difficult to draw a precise line, that's completely undisputed. dab (&#5839;) 09:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The concept is disputed as is manifest from the criticism section. Acknowledging this is elementary reading of the article.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Spencer, Bat Yeor and Ibn Warraq

 * Other authors, and  regard this point of view as one-sided. According to them, the issue whether Islamic source materials such as Qur'an and Hadith promote religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims and terrorism and rejects concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights or not, is not settled, even not between Muslims themselves. They confine islamophobia to generalised hate against every Muslim.

I notice the references for this section do not actually seem to exist: what do Spencer, Bat Yeor and Ibn Warraq actually say, what kind of "authors" are they and where are the references in question? Do they actually talk about Islamophobia or just Islam? Axon (talk|contribs) 09:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, what exactly does Mohammed Arkoun say, and where? I do think his quote will be useful here, showing that "Islamophobes" and Islamists share the same worldview of a "clash of civilization", and that both sides actually rely on the success of the other side for their own prosperity (western Islamophobia helps Islamism, and vice versa). dab (&#5839;) 09:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) He said it to me about six years back in a personal communication. Should go through his work though. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Said, Safi and Esposito
And furthermore, there is quotation from Said, Safi and Esposito who claim they "define" Islamophobia differently, but there is no quotation from Said and the Safi and Esposito references do not seem to exist? Can anyone take ownership of these quotation? Axon (talk|contribs) 09:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see Germen now claims the above scholars are the basis for the RTD which justifies him moving the RTD to the bottom of teh "Definitions" section, something that was not discussed here or in mediation. This is new to me: the article does not seem to describe how the RT used them to come up with the RTD, and the references are still absent. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The discourse by Said, Safi and Esposito is older (1980's and 1990's) than the Runnymede Trust Definition. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Age is not evidence of causation. We still have no idea what Said, Safi and Esposito wrote and even if the quotations are relevant to the topic of Islamophobia. What are these references and please quote those parts that are relevant, and please supply evidence the RTD was based on their works. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The RT report is not online and I do not want to spend 12 pound on it. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So you haven't even read the report in question? How do you know it was based on Said, Safi and Esposito? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources for this section I suggest to eliminate it.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you wish, but if it raises legitimate points about Islamophobia it should be otherwise included seperate to the dispute that Said, Safi and Esposito are responsible for the RTD. Did you actually write this section? If not, could the editor who did please explain it. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

We look very foolish having half a dozen links which point to anchors that don't exist (the ones for these authors) and, in fact, refer to information that is.... in the next section. Self-referencing is not acceptable in academic settings and should not be here. If we intend to put the links in later, lets put them in later, not put up links that go nowhere. --Habap 14:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for Islamophobia
This section is almost completely uncited and contains much information that only seems apologetic to islamophobic sentiment and excuse it rather than making any actual attempt to summarise why islamophobia is on the rise. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

informed, qualified, criticism of Islam should of course not be termed Islamophobia. We need a link to Criticism of Islam, clearly stating that the separation of criticism into 'informed' and 'Islamophobic' is always a matter of point-of-view (obviously, nobody self-describes as an uninformed, fearmonging islamophobe. Everybody thinks they are informed and rational. The allegation of Islamophobia implies that they are mistaken or exaggerating in bad faith). It is well possible to express serious concern about some developments in contemporary Islam without qualifying as an Islamophobe. dab (&#5839;) 10:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, you seem to think that there is a certain evil power, called islamophobia, which is conjured up by BNP and other right-wing extremists. I think the process of developing islamophobia is much more straightforward. People get confronted with Muslims on a less pleasant way, i.e. by terrorist attacks, by women which are dressing "strangely", by increased levels of criminality in which Muslims are the majority of perpetrators. They see an increasing number of people in the streets which are clearly Muslim. They read in the newspapers about what happens in Darfur, in Afghanistan during the Taliban, in Iran, in Saudi-Arabia. The buy a Qur'an with that mindset and find some verses with violence. They generalise those negative experiences to all of islam and Muslims. It is a simple and logical explanation of the development of islamophobia, which is corroborated with reports.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the above from any of my remarks. Simply restating your POV is not evidence of anything: sources and citation is evidence for encyclopedias and I refer you to dab's remarks above. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, those reasons I cite are reasons, people give to hate Islam and Muslims at several venues. I can provide links if you like. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that reasoning is not clear to me: the reason themselves are evidence of the reasons? What sources do you base this on? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If people cite those reasons as the cause for their negative view on islam, it is reasonable to assume that these reasons are indeed the reasons for their hate of islam.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Those studies are secondary sources (in some cases even tertiary sources) and I think are not structly necessary when we avoid interpretation, e.g. as thus: "People cite the following reasons for their negative views on islam:" etc.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, they are secondary sources: that does not imply that they are somehow inferior to any other kind of source. OTOH, anecdotal evidence of individuals personal opinion is not evidence of significant minority views even (see WP:NPOV). Also, what surveys are you referring to? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to point to surveys, popular weblogs and other expressions of vox populi will do. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They almost certainly will not do for the purposes of explaining why people act and behave islamophobically on the wider scale. They are useful only as citation of politically commentary and should be attributed to the specific people in question as their personal opinion if they warrant mention at all. They should certainly not be used as evidence to back up the sweeping, generalised statements made in this section. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Calling the mentioning of three major terror attacks, the demolition of an UNESCO monument and systematic human right violations and ethnic problems sweeping generalisations is a bit over the top I think. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all, if you can find studies that clearly demontrate a rise in islamophobia is clearly linked to these incidents then please feel free to include it. However, the opinions of media pundits and politicial commentators is evidence only of their personal opinion and the political positions of their respected "sides" in the debate and not objective explanation for islamophobia. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * At least it is a suitable explanation for their islamophobia. As those very people are criticized for islamophobia in the article, it is notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking they are accused of making islamophobic quotes not of begin islamophobic, but I agree they should be allowed to defend themselves in the article provided adequate citation is provided and it is adequately attributed. I would also specify that such references should be put in the appropriate place and that "Reasons for..." is not the place for it. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

definitions
Axon and Germen, come to mediation please instead of edit-warring. If the two of you cannot agree, it may be well to take a step back and watch what other editors make of this. Axon, I do think it should be "Definitions". The RTD is "the RTD", and not "the Definition" of the term. dab (&#5839;) 11:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to step back on the proviso Germen similarly agrees, but simply reverting my changes to an article without discussion, sans prior agreement in mediation or edit comments is not suitable behaviour. It would indeed seem, since the page became unblocked, mediation has been somewhat abandoned by Germen.


 * I have no problem with title changes, although there seems to be only one defintion at present. I do believe that the RTD is the most prominent defintion and should not be subsequent to the others. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, I did not revert changes, I rectified some inappropriate and undiscussed edits and incorporated other changes. E.g. calling the Runnymede Trust Definition THE definition of islamophobia is a clear violation of the mediation results thus far. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You clearly reverted my change here, germen, without discussing it on the talk page or commenting yoru edit. I would also add that many of your edits go far beyond what was agreed in mediation. E.g. the "discussion" of RTD section and the additional defintino by the "scholars". Axon (talk|contribs) 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the term arose without a formal definition, and it can be used without one. It means "phobia of Islam", and it is essentially subjective. Maybe the intro could do with a comment to that extent, something like "allegations of Islamophobia are subjective. Applied to criticism of Islam, it implies that the criticism is uninformed, biased, exaggerated or emotional." The RDT is an attempt to make the term less subjective, but if a given position qualifies as islamophobic, except in overwhelmingly insane cases, will still me a matter of subjective judgement. dab (&#5839;) 11:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that I would also ask, in the spirit of compromise, a summary of the RTD or a reference to the RTD was also included in the introduction as well. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

people, I find this annoying. How long have you haggled about this? But the RDT document wasn't even linked from the article. I located it, and I realize that they do not talk of a "definition" at all. They say they describe eight main features typical of Islamophobia. Germen, why don't you just point out that they only intend it as a loose guideline rather than an algorithmic definition instead of all this wriggling about? Allegations of islamophobia will always be dependent on good judgement, RTD or no RTD. dab (&#5839;) 11:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * see my suggestion. My impression is that Axon is too centered on the RTD, while Germen is extremely hostile to it. In my view, the term arose spontaneously, around 1990. it has intrinsic connotations, so that it did not require a special definition beyond them. The RTD is an attempt after the fact (five years or so after the term arose) to make it more objective. However, the RT has no control over whether the term is in fact used according to their suggestion, so even if their 'definition' is the only notable such attempt, actual use will still trump it. dab (&#5839;) 11:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we all find this annoying, I know I certainly do. I would agree with the above, although I would highlight that Germen is equally centered on the RTD: it is the focus of the dispute, after all. I'm happy with the suggestions above in light of the evidence you have provided. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * also, I think attacks on Mosques and the like are not "Examples of Islamophobia", they are the result of Islamophobia. We should say that islamophobic sentiments have led to anti-Islamic violence and lynch mobs in some instances. Mobs burning down Mosques have clearly overstepped the boundary of rational criticism and have crossed into the scary realm of religious persecution. dab (&#5839;) 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that one: that would certainly be an example of an islamophobic act as well as being an example of religious persecution. I'm thinking how a gay bashing is commonly described as a homophobic attack, for example. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was till now presented as a definition by Axon and other writers of this article. In external sources it is presented as a definition. So if I err, so do they. If according to you the RTD is no definition, I suggest to remove it from the Definitions section. This will probably meet with some understandable outcry from Axon, though. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To be fair to me, Germen, you have also described it as a defintion many times yourself. Also, did you actually bother to read my comment above? That said, the description of Islamophobia by the RT is still an important and notable source and, given there are no defintions of Islamophobia, there should not be a Definition sction and the RT should be treated in it's wown section. I will indeed dispute efforts I perceive as unfair to reduce it's notability within the article. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Truce on starting section(s)
Actually, I pretty happy (with the article as it stands with dab's last edits: bravo dab! You saved us poor fools from dispute resolution hell. Apart from my issues with the Criticism section and the "Reasons" section discussed above, the header of the article seems satisfactory to me. I would ask the Germen agrees to a truce on this sections for the time being so that we can resolve issues with the rest of this article. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That said, I'm not sure i understand why Germen has increased the level of the section heading in this edit: the edit was not commented and it seems arbitrary.. Despite being merely a description of Islamophobia it is still an attempt to describe it. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I take it back, unfortunately. Germen's recent edits are yet another attempt to get his uncited POV that the RTD can be disputed through origianl research. Please keep criticism in the crticism section, avoid weasel words ("some authors") and please at least agree to keep the section as it is which seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) I also furhter note you have, yet again, reverted one of my changes, Germen without properly commenting your edits. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Moving criticism to the Runnymede Trust Definition to a separate criticism section implies that the RTD is more notable than the criticism. This is clearly a violation of NPOV and hence not acceptable.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To begin with, criticism should always belong in the Criticism section: that is where it is relevant and appropraite to put it. Criticism is generally, on Wikipedia, considered secondary to discussion of topics and always has been. Secondly, you have no relevant sources to back up your criticism of the RTD. Thirdly, you clearly reverted my edit without even bothering to discuss it or comment your edit: how do you expect to mediate this dispute acting in this way? I ask you remove the dubious text and ctiricism in question yourself and agree to leave this section as of dab's edits. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Criticism is relevant to the subject of criticism and nothing else. I would like a reference to Wikipedia guidelines which say that all criticism must go in a Criticism section rather than be incorporated in the main text, where it removes POV.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your point that there is no official policy, but if you examine articles you will see that this is the general layout and agreed upon syntax... it is very much an unofficial policy but one that it still pertinent here. However, that is aside from the fact you don't actually have any evidence of criticism, Germen, as per mine and dab's comments above and on the mediation page. And, you have also started edit warring again, reverting my edits without any comment. Again, for the purposes of peace I ask you to remove the sections in question and return it to dab's version. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to make the Criticism issue a separate subject for mediation, as there are many Wikipedia articles as well which incorporate criticism in the main text. Top what particular instances are you referring? --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from "where Criticism belongs", the fundamental issue, one which you have continuosly ignored, is that you "criticism" is clearly original research and does not belong in the article. I've repeteadly compromised, debated and discussed this with you, had agreement in mediation on this very topic and you continue, yet again, to completely ignore everything that has occured in mediation an unilaterally add original research to this section. We've already mediated this. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nowhere I draw a conclusion, I just summarize referenced facts. So I do not commit original research. Dab agreed to this.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that assessmemnt of dab's assessment. I would ask dab for clarification here. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ask whatever you like. I did not call it criticism, you did. Every statement is a fact corroborated with references to primary sources. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing
Germen, editing alot won't hide your reversions. I think you have already broken the 3RR at least once now. Please stop editing for a while and let this page settle and let the discussion take place.Heraclius 13:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this is getting beyond a joke: Germen has broken the 3RR within 24 hours of having it un-protected despite copious dispute resolution and mediation. I have reported Germen for breaching the 3RR . 14:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not revert but just one time. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you commented at least two edits in the last 24 hours as "rv." yourself, and I can clearly demonstate two other occasions when you have reverted: although you do not mark these edits as reverts they clear undo mine and other's edits. Please read Revert and WP:3RR. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If this happened with edits which were not marked as reverts, it was not my intention. The connection here frequently hangs and I have to press the submit button six or seven times before something happens. If so, do as I do and salvage valuable content. Try to cooperate. May be you think I am a tattoo'ed, bald NSDAP/AO adept but please give the thought a try that I am a reasonable human being, i.e. assume good faith. Continued whining about other users poisons the atmosphere here at Wikipedia.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You talk of good faith and how reasonable you are, but then you immediately go on to accuse me of "whining" and "poisoning" the atmosphere: hardly the remarks of a reasonable person interested in helping the atmosphere on Wikipedia! You also completely ignored Heraclius' valid reasonable request and warning you back off from the article: how is that cooperative?
 * Sorry, these are the facts. You abuse the Wikipedia arbitration system to get your POV through, if you expect I appreciate that kind of behaviour, you need some reality check. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I clearly highlighted in the discussion above that I thought your edits were reverts and you completely denied that they were: so, I'm confused, which is correct? Weren't they reverts as you categorically denied above and on the 3RR or are they accidental reverts as you now seem to claim? Such disparity in what you say does not inspire much trust. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not edit an old version deliberately, just moved some text blocks to a more appropriate place. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism" of Runnymede Trust Definition
Once again, we see a section of "notes" on the RTD that reads more properly as a criticism.


 * ...probably because the Runnymede Trust has not presented it as a definition.

Probably because!? Can we have citation for this or the remark should be removed. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed.


 * Originally they were part of a scheme contrasting open and closed views on Islam and identifying Islamophobia with the closed views.

Citation? Axon (talk|contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See the Excerpt of the Runnymede Trust report on their website. Part is a diagram which contrasts open and closed views of islamophobia.


 * When equalizing the eight statements with Islamophobia, however, this information might be relevant


 * It is not necessarily relevant according to you. It is extremely relevant according to me and a lot of other people. So I chose the compromise wording 'might be'.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is this information relevant? Why should we be "equalizing" the statements with islamophobia? Axon (talk|contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Relevant because they concern directly the eight statements. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This is followed by a bullet points of evidence and discussion (mostly uncited which should be deleted) that seems unrelated to the topic of Islamophobia and belongs more properly on the Islam and Criticism of Islam articles. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of seeking references for those points. Therefore I have marked them with Fact labels, where I eventually would put references. I was busy with 4) when you got me blocked. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You got yourself blocked there, Germen. I didn't revert four times in 24 hours. If you don't have citation do not include it in the article. I would also bei nterested to hear what other editors thought. Also, pleae tidy up your comments above. They are out of order. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't blame the victim, Axon. I was unblocked because your listing was dubious. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 14:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't call yourself a "Victim"! If you make 4 Reverts you get blocked.  It happes to the best (and worst) of us! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not revert 4 times, but was falsely accused so by Axon, as he did many times before. He seems to be on a crusade in cooperation with BYT to get everyone critical about islam censored and banned. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is why Wiki's eventually fail
You have here an article specifically talking about a topic (Islam) in a negative manner, which is the entire point of the article; and you mark it as being in violation of NPOV. People, people, let me remind you that on some topics there *IS* no correct oppositional view. This article is about the fear of Islam. That in itself carries a negative connotation, and cannot be countered in-and-of-itself. (As form of unrelated example, I ask you: where's an article indicating the good things Hitler did?) Arguing about the NPOV status is about as useful as striking one's own eyes out with hot coals. Add to this form of thinking the simple fact that there are literally tons of articles where information is added by non-experts and then debated over by other non-experts in the field being discussed... Is it any wonder why only experts are writing "real" encyclopedias? Here in wiki-land we have editors fighting to keep things NPOV when this is sometimes impossible along additions made by non-authoritarian sources that are being foisted as valuable because of their neutrality. This is why wikis of this type are doomed to fail and why Wikipedia itself is not accepted as a true and honest source for authority. There comes a point when you have to either adapt to logic, or die.
 * WP fails compared to what? It's one of its kind, and it's thriving. People don't come here for opinions, they come here for factual information. When I consult WP, it is about obscure software formats, or obscure historical personalities. I couldn't care less about the pov essays. dab (&#5839;) 16:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

'my' version
I do not want to be considered an editor of this article while involved in mediation. If there is objection to the edit I have made, I would prefer the article to be reverted to a prior state. In any case, after all this trouble, I still don't get the point of the 'criticism', except, maybe, an attempt at the suggestion that there is no such thing as Islamophobia (i.e. even the most negative views of Islam are firmly based on rational cogitation and evidence). That's of course untenable, and beside the point, since there will always be people objecting to such an extreme view, and these will be the ones using the term islamophobia. In other words, use of the term Islamophobia implies the proposition that "Islam is not more evil than words can possibly express". Only people who believe that Islam is in fact worse than can be expressed in words will opine that it is logically impossible overestimate the danger posed by Islam to humanity. There lies the agreement with the Islamists: both groups tend to emphasize the enormous effect Islam is bound to have on the world, the end of western civilization and what not.

The points in the criticism section belong on Criticism of Islam, they are valid (if sourced), but they look like point-scoring here. in my view, the line between mere criticism and islamophobia is emotional involvement. people with obsessive hatred and dedicated fearmonging about Islam definitely qualify as 'phobes, while people cooly pointing out the many severe problems breeding in Islamic society are first and formost critics. dab (&#5839;) 16:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I felt that version seemed closest to that agreed in mediation and on the talk page. I only labelled it your version because you were the last editor to edit it and I do apologise for naming you.


 * I would agree with the above, and would move that this section be merged where possible with Criticism of Islam and replaced with a note in the Criticism section stating something along the lines of:


 * Many of those critical of Islam reject the claims that their dislike or fear of Islam is unjustified or irrational. Please see Criticism of Islam for more information.


 * Perhaps this could even go in the introduction of the article, although I think some good justification would needed before this is agreed. -Axon (talk|contribs) 09:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This article will stay a POV magnet until it is NPOV, which means that claims of islamophobia should be counterbalanced with other opinions.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That criticism section stinks
I had a good look at the article yesterday, and I can only say that the section titled "criticism" really stinks. Why? Because while it attempts to dispute the points made by the Runnymede trust, the points made in this section are not exactly undisputable themselfes, as can be seen above. And worse than that - most of what is said can just as well be said lots of other religiour groups. Not to mention that it seems to fall into the trap of point 1 itself - "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.". Funny how many Muslims would disagree with that.

I'll list only the biggest problems I see with those "criticisms" - that does not mean that the other points are perfect.
 * 1: Yes, many Muslim authorities have condemned changes and innovations. So have many other religious authorities, including, but by no means limited to, Christian authorities. Also, "many Muslim authorities" is hardly the same thing as "all Muslims" or "the whole of Islam". After all, "the Pope says" is hardly equal to "what Roman Catholics do or think", either, and unlike Muslim authorities, actually, Roman Catholics are theoretically required to follow the pope.
 * 2: So Muhammed knew and acknowledged other prophets and writings before him. Well, so did the mayority of Jewish prophets, not to mention Jesus and Christian writers. Also, Buddhism started as a reform movement of Hinduism. (And of course there are more examples than that.) Also, this "criticism" does not even address the point by the Runnymed trust - just because Muhammed "plagiarized" other writings (if one wishes to see it like that) does not mean that the result has to have many values in common or affected by those writings and prophets "plagiarized".
 * 4: So "several mainstream Islamic scholars" think that Islam should become the religion all people adhere to. (The phrase "Islam is to become the supreme authority on earth" does not make sense - a religion can not become an authority, only people or insititutions can do that.) Well, I guess the fact that there are not exactly few Christian missions and missionars out there converting people (again, so are others) is something completely differerent. There are not all that many religions out there which do not consider themselfes superior to the rest and consider it their duty to get more adherents, so what was the point here?
 * 5: So Islam is also seen as a "political system". Hm, and how about religious politicians of other faiths, who proclaim that they are explicitly following their religion in making political decisions. How about explicitly religious parties? How about religious groups which demand that politics follow their teachings? Again, hardly anything Islam is alone with.
 * 6,7,8: How exactly is this criticism supposed to criticise the Runnymede points? They seem to be quite non sequitur to me. Just because some critics of Islam criticise the West as well it does not follow that the West takes criticism from Islam more serious, does it? And just because some islam-critical authors do not advocate discrimination does not mean that discrimination is not happening, does it? Same with 8: Just because some (or even many) islam-critical authors make a distinction between Islam and individual Muslims, it hardly follows that everybody else makes that distinction, too.

In my opinion, this article would greatly benefit from a simple edit - cut that section and throw it in the dustbin. Maybe, if there is a link that provides an article with that "criticism", it would be acceptable, but this is so far from NPOV that I don't think any of this is salvagable. -- AlexR 12:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In answer to AlexR: I just cited primary and secondary sources and prove them with references before I was blocked and agreed to stop editing this page. I have given different POV's from various Muslim groups. This information, therefore, was relevant. Your response is non sequitur.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 14:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

source for sharon quote?
Anyone have one? I'm pretty surprised he's on record saying that, if only becuase I thought I would have heard it before as a criticism of him (e.g. during an Israeli election etc.). If no one can come up with a source I think it should be taken out, though if someone can at least source a 'hearsay' reference, that mentions this quoute 3rd hand etc. without providing a source itself, it should be changed to use 'alleged' or 'purported.'
 * even if the sharon quote is true, what does it have to do with "Islamophobia?" He's talking about "Palestinians," not Muslims. By sticking such a quote in here, the article is equating Palestinians and Muslims which is ridiculous. --Zeno of Elea 01:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title of the section to "Allegedly Islamophobic quotes" to emphasize that whether some or all of the statements are actually Islamophobic is a matter of dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:18, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
 * why did you rename the section "Possible examples of Islamophobia".. What else is it ? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * e.g., not Islamophobia. Certainly, the subjects of the quotes would likely contest that their positions an "irrational fear or prejudice." An attack on someone wearing Islamic clothing, for instance, is assault. There's no evidence it was motivated by Islamophobia. Similarly, assigning motivation for the other attacks/vandalism is not obvious. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:14, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
 * For instance, the Arlene Peck quote seems to be motivated by a desire to maintain the cultural status of the U.S., and more specifically Dearborn, Michigan as it is, without introducing a new and unwanted elements. Some of these unwanted elements she points to are a lack of Christianity and different tastes in food. I don't see anything irrational about this; I wouldn't be happy if local restaurants started servinv food I didn't like either. The implication of having the quote in this section is that there is no rational reason to want Islamic/Middle-Eastern culture out of American neighborhoods, which is simply not true. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:21, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
 * I'm not really referring to the quotes, they can speak for themselves. However, the pregnant woman was attacked because she was in Islamic dress, and her attackers referred to her as a "Terrorist".  Futher, the smearing a Qur'an in feces, along with the vandalism are done simply because they are Islamic. Can you please tell me the rational, Non-Islamophobic, reason for smearing a Qur'an in feces? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's irrational unless every restuarant suddenly serves food you don't like. If I didn't like McDonald's or Starbucks, I could just eat or drink somewhere else.
 * Interestingly, while most people believe that a phobia is irrational, dictionary.com defines the suffix -phobia as An intense, abnormal, OR illogical fear of a specified thing: xenophobia. (emphasis mine) So, the fear need only be intense OR abnormal, not necessary illogical or irrational.
 * The attack in Arlington, VA (it's like home to me) was obviously Islamophobic. The woman in question is an African-American who converted and doesn't look ethnically arabic, so it's not racism. The hurled anti-Islamic slurs at her, not anti-pregnant-woman slurs. --Habap 15:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Fron -Ril-'s talk page
For the unreliability of this quote, see the following to see the highly dubious sources used by -Ril- (taken from User talk:-Ril-) (Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)):

Do you have a source for this? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ariel Sharon (during an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956) "I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian women and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do"


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) (very POV website)
 * 4) (guardian newspaper)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9) (Daily Mirror (not the UK newspaper, but one from elsewhere))
 * 10) (Annual Islamophobia awards (UK)) - this is where I first got it from
 * 11)
 * 12) (Palestine chronicle)

( ! | ? | * ) 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are these all using Google cache? And why are you quoting reader comments (ala a comment in the Guardian blog) as verifiable?! Absurd. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. It's a well-known hoax. See  Jayjg (talk)  01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's stop this absurdity at the source: I have created an article Ouze Merham to set the record straight. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If I am correct it was another quote, not this, that was taken from Oz's book and attributed to Sharon. This one is completely fabricated, as far as I know.--Doron 06:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Phobic?

 * "To these authors an Islamophobic position typically encompasses the belief that Islam intrinsically promotes religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, terrorism, and that Islam is intrinsically hostile to concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights."

Islam does intrinsically promote religious fanaticism, does promote violence and ill-feeling towards non-Muslims, does seem to spawn many terrorists, and is intrinsically hostile to concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights.

I thought a phobia was an irrational fear of something.

I admit that I do fear Islam, the belief system, but I don't consider this a phobia. It seems quite rational to me. I just don't want to see many more countries becoming anything like Iran, with sinners being put to death for commiting "crimes" that are merely breaches of Islam.

Islam does seem to promote a desire to do away with secular democracies and impose Islam as a form of government. Muslims somehow manage to evoke more uneasiness in me even than George Bush and his loony Fundamentalist Christian friends.

Religion is such a scourge on our species. Killing each other over invisible dieties who don't even exist. Dumb.--195.93.21.2 03:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As noted above Interestingly, while most people believe that a phobia is irrational, dictionary.com defines the suffix -phobia as 'An intense, abnormal, OR illogical fear of a specified thing: xenophobia.' (emphasis mine) So, the fear need only be intense OR abnormal, not necessary illogical or irrational. --Habap 13:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, my fear isn't particularly "intense", just appropriate to a practical threat. I also consider it fairly normal, and I would imagine it is quite common about the belief system discussed. I still don't see how this is a phobia.--195.93.21.2 22:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because you're not phobic about it does not mean that it is impossible for someone else. Ann Coulter, for example, seems to have such an intense emotional response that she might be a good candidate for this label. Of course, she could just be acting that way to sell more books, so might merely be pretending to be Islamophobic. Or, if we change the case to arachnophobia, there are probably people who feel justifiably afraid of black widow spiders and thus would say they are not arachnophobic, yet are considered by others to be so.
 * Since I've never met you, I will take it at face value that you are simply justifiably afraid of Islam. I have my own fears of violent, fundamentalist Muslims that I also don't consider Islamophobic. --Habap 13:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I consider Ann Coulter a right-wing nut. I may, in fact, be Coulterophobic. :)

the 'criticism' again
I think I am getting to the core of this; it seems that the background of the Runnymede 'criticism' is the attempt to imply that Islam is in reality soo bad that it is impossible to have irrational views of it (!); more precisely, it appears that there is an attempt to replace the term with 'Islamocognition' (implying, of course, that only when you hold the worst possible view of Islam will it ever be a realistic view). This gets all of 24 google hits so far. Now, instead of all this edit-warring and oblique arguing, if we could only cite one authority who claims that the eight points of the Runnymede definition are, in fact, the only realistic view of Islam, we could put the matter to rest. If, however, no authority has forwarded this view, it is not Wikipedia's business to do so. Obviously, the people described as Islamophobes will not think they are irrational or cowardly, and will argue their views are correct, so this article can only ever be about alleged Islamophobia. We could even redirect Islamocognition here and say that some Islamophobes self-describe as Islamocognitors to counter the term, and leave it up to the reader to make up their mind; of course, there are precious few experts on Middle Eastern affairs among said "Islamocognitives", but rather people who indulge in posting pictures of their dogs eating a quran on their blogs and asking for the nuking of Mecca, so I think the balance between "irrational hatred (phobia)" and "rational cognition" rather tilts to their disadvantage. dab (&#5839;) 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, many Islam haters do embrace the idea of "Islamophobia" as being sane.Heraclius 23:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamocognition = VfD --Zeno of Elea 05:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * it wasn't vfd'd so far, and it probably wouldn't be as a redirect, but of course as an independent article, it would be justly denounced as a pov fork of this article. dab (&#5839;) 17:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Quotes Described as Islamophobic"
Not a single one of the quotes in the "Quotes Described as Islamophobic" section has a references proving that the quote has actually been described as Islamophobic by anyone. On what basis are these quotes being added to a section titled "Quotes Described as Islamophobic" if it cannot be demonstrated that they are described as Islamophobic? What we have here is a Wikipedia-run witch hunt. --Zeno of Elea 06:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. It's pure original research. -- Karl Meier 15:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we need to find links in which these quotes are described as Islamophobic? I imagine they do exist, though the Ann Coulter quote would seem to me to be self-evident in it's Islamophobia. --Habap 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Runnymede "Definition"
As dab has stated above: "if we could only cite one authority who claims that the eight points of the Runnymede definition are, in fact, the only realistic view of Islam, we could put the matter to rest. If, however, no authority has forwarded this view, it is not Wikipedia's business to do so .. If, however, no authority has forwarded this view, it is not Wikipedia's business to do so." The fact of the matter is that there is no authority that claims such a thing. No relibale source has recognized this so-called "Runnymede Definition" of "Islamophobia." Who has endorsed this definition? No one has endorsed it. Therefore it is not for Wikipedia to endorse such a thing, especially since it is being advanced by a local political lobby (Runnymede). The Runnymede "definition" was the first major section of the article and was followed by a lengthy "criticism" of the Runnymede "definition." THere is clearly something very unencylopediac about all this. Until it can be demonstrated that the Runnymede "definition" has been endorsed or recognized by some relevant authority, it is totally inappropriate for inclusion in the article. --Zeno of Elea 06:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Runnymede trust definition is endorsed by the European Centre for Xenophobia (or something like that). Please check it before removing it again.Heraclius 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the source for this information?--Zeno of Elea 17:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia = Racism ?
Muslims are not a race. Islam is not an ethnicity. As noted in my edit comments, there is no proof in the references that Anwar Said claimed that it Islamophobia = Racism and that Muslims are a single race or ethnicity. The idea that Muslims constitue a race is highly objectionable. It has been duly noted that violence and discrimination against Muslims is often accompanied by racism. This does not mean that Muslims are a race or that discrimination against Muslims is racism a priori. --Zeno of Elea 06:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like Islam and there are hundreds of millions of muslims who are the same race as me, namely Indian. I don't have a problem with Christian Arabs or Indian Hindu's, just muslims. I also don't have a problem with people like Irshad Manji or Salmon Rushdies or any of the many Muslim apostates and secularists. I don't see what the difference is between hating Nazism or Communism and hating Islam. Islam is an idea just like Communism or Nazism. If hating muslims is racist then so is hating Nazis. If fact hating Nazi's is more racist because all Nazi's are one ethnicity, German. What is so illegitimate about hating Islam. Why can't you hate a stupid idea or hate people who believe in a stupid idea.

Anti-Semitism is very different. Jews are no longer a relgion, they are an ethnicity. Jews are hated for having Jewish blood not for their religion. If they were hated for their religion then nobody should care about non-religious Jews. The Germans should have only killed Jews who were still Jewish and fact should like me have love Jews who had given up on Judaism. There were many Jews who did not believe in Judaism that the Nazi's killed. They didn't care about belief. They cared only about blood. I don't give a shit about blood, I only care about ideology. The Nazi's killed Catholic who had converted to Judaism, Atheistic Jews etc. They hated Jews because of who their parents were not because of their beliefs. Hating an ideology or belief is not racism. I have no problem with people who have Muslim parents or origins but no longer believe like a lot of Iranians for instance.

--70.26.133.125 19:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A person can hate Islam all he wants, but sooner or later the hate will gravitate toward hatred of Muslims. And then you start getting articles about nuking Mecca and deporting all Muslims, etc etc. You're telling me that all the Islamophobes out there only hate an "ideology" and not its followers.Heraclius 00:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "A person can hate Islam all he wants, but sooner or later the hate will gravitate toward hatred of Muslims. " As usual, the neologism "Islamophobia" is being used here to stifle debate about Islam - "if you hate Islam, you are a racist," says Heraclius. Since Muslims are not a race, the answer is definitely that Islamophobia and racism are not the same. Now, does hatred of Islam = hatred of Muslims, as he claims? Of course it does not. There are several ex-Muslims writers who criticize Islam, which they see as a backward, violent, and Nazi-like ideology.  But they do not hate innocent Muslims, for their own friends and family are Muslims. Most intellectual critics of Islam will tell you that Muslims are victims of a cult. This is clearly different from harboring hatred for all Muslims because of their beliefs, and is a far cry from hating people based on their racial identities. --Zeno of Elea 17:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, Zeno, you step around what I was saying. I never said Islamophobia is racism.  However, Islamophobia is just normal bigotry and hatred.  You are an Islamophobe because you've endorsed sites such as FFI, which contain calls for the nuking of Mecca, the deportation of all Muslims, and other sensationalist actions like that.  Although Islamophobia is not explicitly racism, it can turn into racism very quickly.  Many people confuse the definition of Muslim and Arab or Muslim and Pakistani, and you can't tell if a person is Muslim just by looking at them.  You are trying to protect yourself from the inevitable accusations of racism by saying "Muslims are not a race".  But at the same time, if you say "deport all Muslims" or "Nuke Mecca", your entire argument falls to pieces.  That is why most "anti-Islamic" sites on the web are actually Islamophobic.  You think I'm trying to call critics of Islam "Islamophobes".  That is not true.  But if these critics of Islam (like Orianna Fallaci) start claiming things like "Muslims are trying to infiltrate the west" or "Muslims practice deception", then they are Islamophobes.  They are just inciting hatred toward a group of people.  Your argument that you can hate an "Nazi-like ideology" but not its followers is absurd.  I hope that clears things up.Heraclius 14:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This would be called religious haters, but still not racist. You don't understand that people who don't like Islam don't like the ideology in it, it has nothing to do with your parents. If your parents are muslims but you are an atheist, people will not have anti-islamic feelings toward you. Same wouldn't be true for blacks for example, or for jews. If you're an atheistic jew, you would be still be hated by antisemits. --equitor 06:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

No, actually it didn't. However, on the other hand, it might clear things up for you to review Wikipedias policies regarding no personal attacks and avoid personal remarks. Also, you shouldn't try put words in Zeno's mouth by making such insulting and untrue statements. The vote at the islam article, was about replacing an external link to a much superior collection of links to sites critical of Islam, at the FFI. It was not about endorsing anything. -- Karl Meier 15:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Karl, I can't tell with your English what you're referring to when you say "it didn't". Please make what antecedent you're referring to clearer.  And there were no personal attacks in that statement, I'd like to see you try and find one.  I recommend that you go back to your arbitration case, thanks.Heraclius 17:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There you go again. With the level of politeness, that you have used in your interaction with the other users here, I am not at all surprised that you think, that you didn't violated Wikipedias rules regarding personal attacks with your above comments. Anyway, to make it more clear for you, this was a personal attack: "You are an islamophobe". -- Karl Meier 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please reread that sentence. I said "You're an Islamophobe" and then I gave reasons.  If Zeno doesn't support those things, then he is not an Islamophobe.  I should've said "You're an Islamophobe if" to make it more clear.  It's as simple as that.Heraclius 18:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To give what you consider to be "reasons", is not an excuse to use labels and names that other users might very well find insulting. We are supposed to avoid personal attacks and personal remarks here. It's as simple as that. -- Karl Meier 18:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Criticism is a far cry from hatred, and hatred towards an ideology is a far cry from hatred towards a religion. Religion has many different aspects besides the ideas in its foundation -- religion includes tradition, philosophy, politics, and heritage, but for most people religion is primarily a community. In this respect, a phobia against a religion is closer to racism than to criticism of ideology. Criticism of Islamic philosophy or politics is one thing, but a person that proclaims he "hates Islam" is expressing negative emotions towards Islam in its entirety. I think Islamophobia is about the latter, not the former, the former is not a phobia.--Doron 09:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is tautological that a religion is not a community, as you claim. There are religious communities, but this clearly does not imply that religion itself is a community. Furthermore, hatred of an ideology and hatred of a religion is not distinguishable, especially in the case of Islam. Phrases like "closer to racism" are manifestly original research, and are in fact meaningless. Expressing negative emotions towards Islam in its entirety is not racism; I reiterate once again, Islam is not a race. --Zeno of Elea 11:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That a religion is not a community is most certainly not a tautology. And what I meant above is that the community is an aspect of religion, not that community equates religion, of course. Anyway, religion is not just a set of ideas, it is a belief system and the social structure that supports it. This is particularly true for religions such as Islam, where the community plays a strong part of the religion. Many Muslims, and probably the vast majority of Jews and Christians, are defined as such even if they don't follow the religion they consider themselves part of, don't subscribe to its beliefs, don't practice its rituals, etc.. The vast majority of people belonging to a religion are born into it, rather than choosing to believe in it out of free will, hence the parallel to racism.
 * Islam is not a race in its biological sense, true, (though see ), but that does not mean that Islamophobia is totally unrelated to racism. Strictly speaking, the whole idea of races in humans is highly contested, so one may argue that there are no races and thus no racism; furthermore, racism is rarely related to "race" in its biological sense -- one may argue that Nazi practices were not racist, because the Jews are not a race (they're a religious group) and the Aryans are not a race (they're a linguistic group), and in fact most Jews in Europe at the time yiddcould have been considered "Aryan" as they spoke Yiddish, an Aryan language, but this would be absurd. Clearly, Anti-Semitism is closely related to racism, even if Jews don't constitute a race in its biological sense, and I argue that Islamophobia is related to racism in the same way.
 * Re: original research, it is not original research, it is my opinion, which is perfectly fine in a talk page, just as is your opinion, that hating Islam is "not distinguishable" from hating an ideology. Perhaps others can quote sources to support or challange these arguments, making them worthy of inclusion in the article. --Doron 12:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Islam is not a race in its biological sense, true, (though see )" Islam is not a race in ANY sense. The dictionary definition of race does not in any way suggest that Islam could ever be concidered a race.
 * "Strictly speaking, the whole idea of races in humans is highly contested, so one may argue that there are no races and thus no racism" This is actually completely false. But if you are going to argue that there is no such thing as race, then you have defeated your own purpose of trying to prove that negative sentiments towards Islam are a form of racism.
 * Obviously you don't understand my point, which is not that Islam is a race (as I clearly state above), but rather that racism is not necessarily based on the scientific definition of race in humans (which is far from concensus in itself).--Doron 08:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Nazi practices were not racist, because the Jews are not a race (they're a religious group)" This is completely incorrect. Jews are a matrilinear ethnicity, not just a religious group.
 * Matriliner ethnicity is not race. Anyone can become a Jew or a Muslim by convertion. On the other hand, one born to a Jewish mother or a Muslim father is Jewish or Muslim, respectively, and probably the vast majority of either religion are born into it rather than choose to adhere to it, as opposed to ideology, which usually one accepts out of free will. At any rate, neither is a race. You are yet to suggest a difference between the two religions making hatred towards one more legitimate than towards the other.--Doron 08:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "the Aryans are not a race (they're a linguistic group)" This is a subject I'm willing to discuss, and it is completely irrelevant anyway.
 * "most Jews in Europe at the time yiddcould have been considered "Aryan" as they spoke Yiddish, an Aryan language" Again, you are wrong. Yiddish is mixture of the Indo-Aryan Germanic languages and the Semetic Hebrew language. It is the result of a Semetic language group migrating and inhabiting amongst an Indo-Aryan language group for centuries. And, again, the issue of Aryans are irrelevant to this discussion.
 * "Clearly, Anti-Semitism is closely related to racism, even if Jews don't constitute a race in its biological sense, and I argue that Islamophobia is related to racism in the same way." As noted, Jews are not only a religious group but are also a race. This is simply not true in the case of Islam. In polite company, it is considered anti-Semetic to suggest that Jews are only a religious group and not an ethnicity, bound by a common genetic, linguistic, and national heritage - thus it would appear that you are resorting to a brand of anti-Semitism in order to try to elevate Islam to the level of "race."
 * I find it offensive that you are implying that I am Anti-Semitic, especially since I'm Jewish myself. It is neither impolite, nor Anti-Semitic to suggest that Jews are just a religious group, it happens to be my self-designation. Why don't you enlighten yourself a bit and read about Reform Judaism, for instance? I will just note that some people consider referring to Jews as a race to be Anti-Semitic.--Doron 08:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Re: original research, it is not original research, it is my opinion, which is perfectly fine in a talk page" Your personal opinion has no place in the article. This discussion is not about your opinion, it is about attempts to include unsourced claims in the article about Islam being a race and (by extention) Islamophobia being a form of racism. --Zeno of Elea 01:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, this is not the article, this is the talk page, so my opinion is appropriate here. I have seen no claims in the article about "Islam being a race".--Doron 08:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Islam is not simply a religion in the spiritual sense. It’s also an ideology. Most (even if not all) Muslim scholars claim that Islam should not be restricted to the private life, but should control the temporal sphere. Islam mingles with political subjects concerning economy, woman’s right, judicial system etc… So it’s not only a spiritual system, it’s a political ideology. As such, it is criticisable as any ideology, socialist, green, communist, neocons etc... Qualifying critics of Islam as racists is a cheap attempt to prevent such critic. IMHO, it’s unacceptable.--equitor 07:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The References section claims that the article contains a quote from Said, from page 74 of some book with an "unknown publisher." The article does not, and never has to my knowledge, contained a quote from Said. The article does however claim that Said equates "Islamophobia" with racism, but no quotes are given and yet the Said reference refers to a quote from page 74 of a book by Said. This is clearly an unacceptable citation. The anonymous user, who continues a revert war to delete information from the article, is also continuing to re-insert the uncited claims about Said allegedly equating racism with "Islamophobia." In the absense of a source, this is not an acceptable level of discourse. --Zeno of Elea 00:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Said is on the PLO political bureau. He's a highly partisan person and NPOV. Everything he says cannot be taken for granted.--equitor 07:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes section
I noticed that the entire quotes section was removed. Zeno, would you be opposed to putting it back in under the headline "Anti-Islamic quotes" and mentioning the fact that not all of the quotes are described as Islamophobic?Heraclius 00:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am opposed to such an idea. This is 100% original research, and is therefore unacceptable for Wikipedia. You are not allowed to run your own witch hunt on Wikipedia space. --Zeno of Elea 17:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to run your own witch hunt on Wikipedia space. -- well said; I may quote you on that in the future :) dab (&#5839;) 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

slamophobia? Try 'Infidelophobia'!!! Do you suffer spinal twinges when reading of Buddhist teachers shot in the back by Jihad terrorists? Are you prone to experience a slight jabbing pain in the side when hearing of another Israeli stabbed to death by the Palestinian Fedayeen? Do you get a sort of burning sensation in your sinuses upon learning of a family of Hindus forced into a house by the Mujahideen and set aflame? Is there a dry or scratchy feeling in the back of your mouth when told of a Christian getting their throat slashed by Islamists? How about old-school decapitation with a dull blade? Leave you feeling a bit light-headed?

If so, then you may have Islamophobia, a new term that literally means a fear of Islam and its strict devotees. The United Nations recently held a seminar on Islamophobia, in which the “venerable” Kofi Annan, stated that “When the world feels compelled to coin a new term to take account of widespread bigotry – this is a troubling development.”

[Kind of like “Oil for Food” which describes a corruption scandal wherein bureaucrats and member nations of a bloated, pompous, international organization rife with dictators are paid under the table to moralize by another dictator… anyway, back to Islamophobia.]

Kofi goes on to say that Islamophobia has left “many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”

If this gets Kofi all worked up, then we suppose that he’ll have plenty to say about Infidelophobia. It’s a condition that leaves a lot of people (infidels, in this case) concerned, aggravated and fearing for their safety as well, along with something else – a big pile of dead bodies. More than 10,000 in fact, and that’s just since 9/11/01 - and doesn’t even include the 3,000 murdered that day. Nor does it include the more than 30,000 others who have been maimed in nearly 2,000 fatal terrorist attacks tracked by TheReligionofPeace.com. The killers are always devoted Muslims, and sometimes the victims as well, but it’s all for the cause of killing infidels as inspired by the Qur’an and Hadiths, so let Allah sort the bodies out as they get delivered.

Those whining about Islamophobia seem to be completely ignorant of the contingency between Jihad and a fear of Islam on the part of its victims. Their solution is not to cease the violence that causes fear, but rather to change the attitudes of non-Muslims. And who is it that is supposed to be bigoted?

Let’s compare what we have thus far.

Victims of Islamophobia, when they aren’t whining, supposedly spend their time worrying that they might be insulted, given the finger, or detained at the airport (in other words, pretty much the same things that happen to a lot of Americans everyday, sometimes concurrently).

By contrast, victims of Infidelophobia don’t have it quite so good. They have to worry about horrific acts of terrorism in places where Muslims have a significant minority (Kashmir, The Philippines, Lebanon, Nigeria…) and flat-out subjugation in the areas under Islamic hegemony (Sudan, Iran, Indonesia and basically any other Muslim country). Even in the “Land of the Free” over the last three years, thousands of Americans have been killed in more than a dozen attacks for shopping, flying or simply showing up at work on time.

Victims of Infidelophobia have good reason to be afraid because unlike Islamophobia, which may usually be categorized as a natural apprehension based on empirical observation, Infidelophobia is nurtured by thousands of radical imams in hate-filled sermons across the globe, as well as thousands of Islamist schools teaching extreme bigotry. There are even millions of Infidelophobes across the world, quite apathetic or even supportive of the many violent fanatics busily applying a literal interpretation of the Qur’an by killing thousands of infidels each year.

Still not sure which is worse? Well, another advantage that an Infidelophobe has over an Islamophobe, is international impunity. Rack up an impressive list of hate crimes and you may find yourself being handed a Nobel Peace Prize someday!
 * The above semi-literate rant was anon (68.159.67.106) sole contribution to Wikipedia!--Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)