Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

---

Where do you start with this article? Bits added here and there, very little of it from truly scholarly sources, no attempt to reflect the range of academic views. Now accusations flying of

and goodness knows what else.

So to go back to the beginning, which appears to be the Qur'an. Firstly it is absolutely essential to make it clear that the interpretation of a text hundreds of years old in a language that is no longer anyone's first language is not going to be straightforward.

It is appropriate, I think, to list all the verses that have been interpreted at some time as attacking or disparaging Jews (and/or Christians). This should lead straight into a thorough and balanced discussion of the different interpretations that have been made.

This doesn't currently happen, and instead we leap straight to the year 888, when the Aghlabids, who may have had some kind of control of some or all of Sicily (but still disputed full control with the Byzantines) issued a proclamation. I don't know whether the book referred to is an academic one or not - it is with a very good publisher, so let us assume it is, but I am concerned that the point is not directly related to the topic of the book, and also that this event does not appear in the Yellow badge or Timeline of antisemitism articles. It may be a good point to add, but will need proper checking.

Then another leap into the 21st century. I personally am in no doubt that Saudi textbooks have referred to the Qur'anic texts that mention apes and pigs - however, those texts are still open to interpretation. It is a live controversy and notable. Irrefutable sourcing can be made to the UK news media, because there was a recent case of an Islamic school in London using textbooks of Saudi origin that had such references. I saw the head teacher interviewed on the BBC. She did not deny that there were such references in the textbooks, but she did say that there were different interpretations of the Qur'anic verses, also that those chapters in the book had not been used in the school. Itsmejudith 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That Muslims hold that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion is cutting off a motivation for antisemitism (i.e. the "Jews killed Jesus" statements...) rather than one provoking antisemitism. --Aminz 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying, and what is your source? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a lead should start "this article is about". It should ideally start "Islam and antisemitism" is ... . Itsmejudith 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point is quite valid, however, we can't seem to agree with what the relationship between Islam and antisemitism actually is.Bless sins 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had something to propose. Doesn't the fact that it is hard to formulate a lead in the proper terms say something about the rationale for this article? I will raise it on the WP:LEAD talk page in case similar problems afflict other articles. Itsmejudith 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"The nature and extent of the relationship between "antisemitism and Islam" is a hotly-debated issue in contemporary Middle East politics."? There's no sensible sentence that can start with "Islam and antisemitism", since the article title is a compromise. Hornplease 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, there are some important scholars, including Bernard Lewis, no less, who have specifically discussed the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Not only can their views be reflected here, they should be reflected here, and in fact the whole article should be based around these serious views of serious scholars. Of course it is a POV in the sense that anything that anyone says is a POV. Note that these scholars do not argue that it is impossible for Muslims to be antisemitic, they are simply saying that there is no intrinsic relationship between the religion Islam and the ideology of antisemitism. Although there are some contrary views that may also be discussed if they can be attributed to scholars of the issue, this is in fact the scholarly consensus and the article has to make the fact plain. Itsmejudith 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Who's to say it is the scholarly consensus? Lewis is one scholar, Cohan is another. While their views can be expressed here, they are only two people, and their views may not represent those of all scholars. Leon Poliakov, Walter Laqueur, and Jane Gerber are also scholars. We should let the readers decide for themselves whether Islam truly is an antisemitic religion or not, and not take a particular stance on that. Lewis' views are pretty well represented in this article in my opinion.--Sefringle 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But Poliakov's views haven't. He has said a lot of postiive things about Muhammad (e.g. that Muhammad was very resepectful towrds the Jews). Infact, I have yet to verify the source in which Poliakov accuses Islam of anti-semitism. In anycase, Bernard Lewis is an exceptional scholar because he is a scholar both on Islam(ic history) and antisemtism. Mark Cohen is also a scholar on Jews under Islam. Most of the rest of the scholars quoted are either scholars on Islam or antisemitism.Bless sins 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is not who is more scholarly. The point is we should represent both viewpoints fairly and evenly.--Sefringle 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle I agree. But please give me some to time to actually verify what Poliakov says. I don't think any scholar is of the view that Islam is an anti-semitic religion. That is not only a myth but also quite an extremist view similar to that of

unsigned comment was added by Bless sins (talk • contribs

) 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Please refraim from calling peoples views "extremist."--Sefringle 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what should I call views that make blanket allegations against 1.2 billion people of hatred?Bless sins 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not making "blanket allegations." They are offering evidence to prove their point. That is not blanket.--Sefringle 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And if Lewis in his wisdom chooses to approach the subject by way of a contrast between Islam and Christianity then it is not up to us to deem the contrast "off-topic". (So long as we do not digress any further into Christianity-related matters than necessary in order to make the point about Islam.) Itsmejudith 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, thanks for your self-revert. The second sentence "according to him (Chanes)..." reads oddly because in Islam there can be no concept of deicide. It is a Christian concept related to the incarnation. Chanes is not the original source of this fact, but is simply repeating it in order to illustrate the contrast between the Christian-Jewish relation and the Islamic-Jewish relation. Itsmejudith 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I self-reverted is because I saw that the crucifixion is indeed discussed, thus part of the Lewis material is indeed relevant.Proabivouac 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, your edits went beyond the material on Christianity. there was a lot of material that you (probably accidently) moved to the inappropriate section.Bless sins 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, can you please explain your recent edits?--Sefringle 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a game going on with Bless sins' arguments, above. I'll summarize them so we don't have to keep going round and round.

• If Bless sins doesn't have a copy of a source, he challenges it claiming that it doesn't refer directly to antisemitism, and insisting it must be removed until someone can prove it refers directly to antisemitism.
• If the source clearly refers to antisemitism, but uses a synonym like "anti-Jewish sentiment", he challenges it claiming that it is original research to associate anti-Jewish sentiment with antisemitism, regardless of the fact that they are synonyms, and insisting it must be removed.
• If the source clearly refers to antisemitism, and uses the words antisemitism, he challenges it claiming the source is not an expert in antisemitism, and insisting it must be removed until someone can prove the source is an expert in antisemitism.

All challenges are made solely for the purpose of removing any source which asserts a relationship between Islam and antisemitism. At some point the game playing must stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That seems to be the case with this recent edit. I'd revert it, but currently if I did so I'd be in violation of the 3RR. I was hoping Bless Sins would explain his/her edits here on the talk page, but Oh well.--Sefringle 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit,[1] Bless sins states, "this source is neither reliable nor about antisemitism." There are actually two sources here, one of which may well be unreliable, but the other is Encyclopedia Britannica, and alleges that Al-Hakim "persecuted Christians and Jews. The other alleges that "in 1007 he burned down the entire Jewish quarter in Cairo." I fail to understand how one can with a straight face claim that Britannica is not a reliable source, or that these points are not "about antisemitism."Proabivouac 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NB that Al-Hakim was recognised to be completely mad. Not an excuse for the persecution of Jews, of course, but part of an explanation. Itsmejudith 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, one of the sources, as you said is not reliable. The Britannica is definetly reliable but doesn't specifically refer to antisemitism. Persecution is not the same as antisemitism. If you think it is I can bring many mnay sources that suggest that Muslims did not persecute minoirities (but do not refer specifically to antisemitism).Bless sins 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, so neither anti-Jewish sentiment, nor persecution of Jews, is actually antisemitism. Astonishing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make

straw-man arguments. I have said that you need RS that suggest if an example of persecution is antisemitism or not. (Similarly you would need reliable sources to state "Paris is the capital of France" even though the statement is obviously true).Bless sins

22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jayjg:

• There are many sources that I don't have a copy of, but I don't challenge them. The sources I do challenge are ones that are not remotely connect to either Islam or antisemitism (Yahsar of Candia for example).
• Again wikipedia forbids synthesis. In anycase there is only one source this arugment applies to, but that source doesn't meet the condition in the enxt point.
• All sources must be reliable sources. See
  WP:RS
  if you don't believe me. The burden of evidence lies on you for providing a relaible source.

Bless sins 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments above; this isn't about reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On this page you tried to (incorrectly) summarize my argument. Now you are running away from a fundamental issue. You must provide reliable sources for all content (and the sources need to be in relation to Islam and antisemitism). Bless sins 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, in this edit,[2], "what various arab leaders say today belongs in "modern muslim antisemitsm"" While I can see your point, I must disagree, as this material is quite clearly about the Qur'anic claim that Jews were transformed into monkeys and pigs. What upsets me is that you make no mention of, or attempt to justify, your rearrangement of the subsections; one is forced to compare versions side by side to see what was done. Please take greater care in the future to ensure that your edit summaries address all of the significant changes you have made.Proabivouac 02:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific with regards to "rearrangement of the subsections". There is a lot of rearrangment, I am not sure which do you mean.

There are several questions. Firstly, much of the material comes from secular sources (e.g. a Syrian minister). How is a Syrian minister a reliable source on the Quran? Secondly, is there any of these sermons that specifically invokes a particular verse of the Quran? They may talk about apes and pigs, but do they say that they are getting this from the Quran? Thirdly, where is the source that says that these comments are antisemitic?Bless sins 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is simpler way to frame my argument. A lot of the content in question consists of claims - either that Islam/Muslims are antisemitic, or they are not. If the target of the claim is the Quran (i.e. the claim is that the Quran is/isn't antisemitic), then the argument belongs in the "Quran" section. But if the target is modern Muslim society (i.e. the claim is that some aspect of Muslim society today exhibit antisemitism), then the argument belongs in the "Modern Muslim antisemitism".

One example of the content in question is the following

Erel Shalit writes: We need to bear to listen to the accusations from the Arab world, however outrageous and anti-Semitic many of them are, for instance...

Now the question is: Is Shalit saying that the Quran is antisemitic, or is he saying that some Muslims/Arabs today are antisemitic? You can go about answering the question by answering a simpler question: Are Shalit's conclusion based upon the research of the Quran, 7th century Arabic, and the Prophet Muhammad? Or are his conclusions based upon observances of modern Arab society?Bless sins 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This section needs serious help. It appears at first glance that the claims of Lewis and Chanes have been intermingled and potentially corrupted, and at times its not clear what is being said. I'd like to verify who is saying what, and clean up some of the language.Proabivouac 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For this reason I don't want to leave Chanes' commentary there. In anycase the whole section should be presented as "Islamic theology" which keeps parts directly related to Islamic theology and minimizes comparisons to Christianity.Bless sins 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Violates

The section is supposed to be about antisemitism inside the Qur'anic literature(as a subsection of "Qur'an"). That for example during tensions between the two community, the phrase was used by Muslims in abusive language, or that a certain Muslim dynasty in North Africa set up certain regulations are indirectly related. They deserve a brief mention in a few sentences (with the details coming in relevant sections). Currently, we have dedicated more than 1 page to it writing about what Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar stated on Syrian TV or what 'Abd Al-Sattar on November 8, 2005 said. By 2000+ quotes I mean quotes coming from year 2000 and afterwards.

I have summerized everything in the following which could be added to the "Attack" section:

"There are a number of other verses that refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs (e.g. see ^{[Quran 5:60]},^{[Quran 2:65]}, and ^{[Quran 7:166]}). ^[1] According to some commentators the transformation literary happened while others understand it metaphorically (e.g. as something that happened to Jewish hearts). ^[2] Johannes J. G. Jansen states that the qur'anic verse ^{[Quran 5:60]} qualifies the Jews of Medina with the epithets apes and pigs. Many modern preachers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century.^[3][4] According to Lewis, the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims and the conventional epithets for Jews are apes, and for Christians are pigs.^[5]"

The details can go to the relevant sections. Any objections?--Aminz 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz take a look at what appears to be source number 4 (i.e "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism"). In that souce, the only scholar, Khaleel Mohammed, is trying to say that the Quran is not attacking the Jews. Thus the very source holding up the section is trying to say that the Quran is not antisemitic. Interesting isn't it?Bless sins 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Khaleel Mohammed is quite clear that various Muslim preachers use those verses to attack Jews. More interesting is source number 5, "Andrew Rippin, Sabbath,

Encyclopedia of the Qur'an". As far as I can tell, it doesn't refer to antisemitism at all. Why haven't you protested its inclusion? Jayjg ^(talk)

16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the source yet (just like I haven't read numerous other sources). And the source doesn't raise any red flags. It's about Islam, it connects to Judaism (though I don't know if it's about antisemitism). Finally, in anycase, the source is reliable. COmpare this with "Yahsar of Candia", which is not about Islam and not about antisemitism.Bless sins 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The statements sourced to Barzilay/Yahsar of Candia discuss the designation of Jews as monkeys and Christians as pigs, and are topical to this section for the very same reason Rippin's article is. Aminz has complained about the focus on recent statements in this section, so I think he should be interested in retaining this report on this 9th century practice.Proabivouac 23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Islam and antisemitism. Does Barzilay cite antisemitism when making his arguments? Furhter, is barzilay a reliable source on antisemitism (or Islam)?Bless sins 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed source number 5, until Aminz can show how it is related to Islam and antisemitism. Let's see if Jayjg begins the removal of other ORs, perhaps the one listed under "Edit 5".Bless sins 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

According to

Western World, antisemitism is unable to establish itself in the private lives of Muslims.^[7]

Bernard Lewis writes that the expression of antisemitism at the personal level in the Muslim world is still quite rare.[8]

I am removing this section for the following reasons:

1. First quote is just a POV that adds nothing to the article of any encyclopediac merit. It is jsut denial, trying to say Islamic antisemitism is only anti-zionism.
2. Jansen's comment is an attempt to predict the future. Thus needs to be removed per
   WP:NOT#CBALL
   . Also very one sided unsourced POV.
3. Lewis' quote is repeatitive, as this particular view of his has been mentioned in this article at least twice already.

--Sefringle 04:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No don't. Wikipedia is not censored. Just because you don't agree with a scholar's opinions, doesn't mean you have the right to remove them.

1.According to

WP:NPOV

"All editors and all sources have biases". Thus all content is the POV of some particular scholar. Our job is to "represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)".

2.

WP:NOT#CBALL

says "It is appropriate to report discussion ... provided that discussion is properly referenced." Thus my edits are very appropriate.

"Also very one sided unsourced POV". Please open up your eyes. Johannes' POV is cited to an article he wrote for the "The Jewish Quarterly Review", a journal.

3.What are the two places Lewis' quote has been mentioned? I found one place where it was mentioned, and removed the misplaced content.

Bless sins 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First this is a very one sided section; it is pretty clear the purpose is to push the POV that somehow Islam is not antisemitic. I know what NPOV states; it means views should be represented neutrally. And in response to wikipedia is not censored, there is wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda. (See

) There is no denying that all these scholars are saying the exact same thing; that antisemitism will not last in the muslim world. This is very one sided, and a clear POV pushing soapbox.

1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete states the following reguarding removing bias material: "In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." There is no valid material written in this section. It is only a repeat of the POV pushed already, that somehow antisemitism will not last. Already stated several times, and there is no need to repeat this again.
2. This is clearly speculation, as there is no possible way
   WP:NOT#CBALL
   .
3. Where Lewis' belief was mentioned earlier was a far more appropiate place for it than here. Here, it is just reiterating a POV of his that has already been stated. It is also pushing the POV that somehow it is more accurate than the other POV's, and that the other POV's are somehow less true. Doesn't belong here.

--Sefringle 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, Stillman's quote that "Antisemitism in Muslim world increased greatly for more than two ..." is not already mentioned in the article; i searched for it but couldn't find anything. --Aminz 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but it clearly violates NPOV. I seperated the quotes and reasons by numbers. Reason 1 was my reason for removing that quote. This particular POV has already been pushed by the other scholars, and doesn't need to be reiterated again at the end.--Sefringle 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sefringle: If saying that Islam is not antisemitic is POV, then saying Islam is antisemitic is also POV. I don't know why you want to block out references that doesn't agree with your POV, given that you know wikipedia is not a soapbox for your POV.

1. Ofcourse it contains valid information. It show how antisemitism changed throughout the 20th century, and what its future will be.

2. Such "speculations" are made all the time. In any case, I have already proved that wikipedia supports my edits because my edits are "properly referenced" (to RS). I have even shown you how

supports my edits. That you continue to deny that fact is just as absurd as your claim that my edits were "unsourced".

3. I never said Lewis' POV is somehow more accurate, nor did anything to imply that. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do. 17:35, 21 May 2007

Both Lewis' and Mohammaed's statements are regarding trends, and I have move both down accordingly.Bless sins 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Can you show how PEW global attitudes project, which you have not removed, is at all a reliable source on antisemitism?Bless sins 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No, there is nothing valid in the first quote. It is only a one sided POV that only repeats one of the views.

2. No. You haven't. See point 3 of

. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." This is clearly speculation and future history. Nobody will know the future of antisemitsim, likely nobody will know the future of any other belief. 3. read through my last comment again. You seem to have missed the point.

4.PEW is reliable because it provides surveys which have been reported in many reliable sources including highly notable newspapers, and other scholarly sourcs, and their statistics are regularly quoted. Second, it reports in this case on present attitudes of muslims, it is not speculating, and it clearly discusses antisemitism. --Sefringle 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. That's just your POV. The first quote provides the reader with how antisemitism has varied from 1948 to the 1970s and to the 1980s and 1990s.

2.

says "It is appropriate to report discussion ... provided that discussion is properly referenced." Since my discussion is properly referenced, my edits are completely appropriate. This is the second time I have repeated this.

3. What was your point? State it in a clear and straightforward manner.

4.Please provide evidence as to how PEW is a relaible source on antisemitism. In other words, what qualifies the author(s) to comment on antisemitism. Please show evidence of the particular report you are talking about being quoted by "scholarly sourcs".Bless sins 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Does not. It was added to this article only to add POV. It provides no additional useful information that hasn't already been used in this article.
2. And this is the second time I am repeating myself. This an attempt to predict the future, which cannot be proven to be true. There is no way Johannes Jansen can possibly know the future of antisemitism. Thus it is a clear violation of
   WP:NOT#CBALL
   . Nobody can predict, or has the authority to predict the future additudes of people, and doing so is sole speculation. The section you quoted, you took out of context. It says in full: ". It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Now Jansen is not predicting the sucess of a future proposal or project. He is attempting to predict future opinions. Thus this sentence does not allow Jansen's quote here.
3. What I am saying is this particular belief of Lewis is already mentioned in the article. Outside of the trends section is the appropiate place for it. This belief of Lewis is reflected in this article many times throughout the article, and it is just repeatitive to repeat it again.
4. PEW is a reliable source because their research on globel additudes has been reported in many scholarly sources as accurate in determining how people in the world feel. Examples of such sources which use their polls and say their polls are accurate include the
   USA TODAY [7], CNN [8], and some other scholarly sources include the following: [9] [10]

--Sefringle 04:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1. What my intentions were when I added this, is not your concerns. The fact is that it provides the user with useful information. You can't deny that.

2. The full quote is ". It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis added) Jansen is predicting that a "development will occur", namely antisemitism will diminish in the Muslim world.

3. But if Lewis' quote is about trends, why should he be mentioned "many times" "outside of the trends section"?

4.I don't need you to bombard me with crude links. Your first link (

05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No, there is nothing useful in this quote. Only lopsided POV, especially in this section.

2. No, Jansen is predicting future additudes. Here is the definition of development: [12] Notice that none of the definitions of development include changing attitudes.

3. He is mentioned many times outside of the trends section, not that he should be. Don't quote me out of context. What I said is the other places where he is mentioned are more appropiate places for his opinion. It is unduely defensively to mention this again.

4.Doesn't matter, it is a reliable source for statistics, or do you deny that. But since you asked for a specific site, here's one [13].--Sefringle 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I could say the same thing about PEW global attitudes...

2. "Development" means, amongst other things:[14]

• progress. If the Muslim world becomes less antisemitic, then has it not socially progressed?
• a significant consequence or event: Indeed if antisemitism dies in the Muslim world(representing 1/5 of the world), it will be a significant consequence.

3. His comments are about trends. Thus they should be in the trends section.

4. Does matter. In any case the link provided suffices PEW to be a reliable source.Bless sins 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You could, but you would be lying. It is obvious how statistics are relevant. Opinions, however are not statistics.

2. Ok, now you are just misinterpriting the definition. Muslims becomming less antisemitic is not progress. It is changing attitudes. See the example "child development; economic development" Neither of these are examples of changing attitudes.

3.He comments not on trends, but just an opinion which has already been expressed many times throughout the article already. --Sefringle 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, I can also accuse you of "lying" (your word not mine). Btw, Stillman's "opinion" is not an opinion, but a statement on trends.

2. No I'm not. I even used the definition/link you provided. Progress is progress, whether social ecnomic or moral. Also, antisemitism is a "significant" ideology (or whatever you want to call it), thus it fits the second definition as well.

3. His comment is about trends, the levels of expression of antisemitism in the Muslim world can be considered trends. the only differnce between him and PEW is that (a) he doesn't use percentages, and (b) he is a lot more reliable source.Bless sins 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It most certianly is an opinion. Someone can easily disagree without being wrong per se.
2. Moral changes are additude changes, not progress or development. It doens't fit into the definition. It certianly is not a trend. It is an attempt to push a POV by calling an opinion a fact.
3. His comment is an opinion, mentioned many times already, and not at all related to "trends." It is not a fact. a. there is no statistical data, true, and b. that is just another opinion you are trying to push as fact. I'm not stupid. I know the difference between an opinion and a fact.--Sefringle 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No that's false. Someone can't say "antisemitism in the Muslim world decreased for more than two decades following 1948" wihtout contradicting Norman Stillman. 1.On the other hand, some can interview a different group of people (after all PEW didn't even interview 1% of the Pakistani population) and arrive at the conclusion that only 45% of Pakistanis have views unfavorable towards Jews. Now that is an opinion.

2.

is definetly a type of progress. Also the death of an ideology in 20% of humands is a "significant consequence".

3. Ofcourse it is related to trends. Just as PEW says "anti-Jeiwsh sentiment is endomic in the Muslim world" he says "expression of antisemitism at a personal level is quite rare". Same thing, except he give a different POV. And NPOV requires us to present his POV alongside others.Bless sins 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1. That is correct. They can't. But that doesn't change the fact that it is still an opinion. As for PEW, they are highly recognized for preforming reliable surveys. I doubt they had ulterior motives before beginning their survey. Their results do seem to be consistent with the general muslim attitudes toward Jews as it is anyway.
2. You can misinterprit the definition of social progress is all you want; that doesn't necessarily make it more encyclopediac for this article. It still cannot be argued to the point where it is proven true. Social progress refers to changing politics and way of life. Antisemitism is not either. Morality certianly isn't mentioned. Did you read that article you linked to?
3. He gives the same POV, and this is just getting repeatitive. I am not going to waste my time repeating what I already said.

--Sefringle 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1. No it is not an opinion, rather a statement of fact. I have alredy shown you that anyone disagreeing with this "opinion" will be contradicting Stillman. Even if it is an opinion, so what? Saying that the Quran attacks Jews is also an opinion. I also doubt that Stillman had "ulterior motives", before he wrote what he wrote. Stillman is also a very reliable and respected source.
2. I'm not misinterpreting it. I have provided numerous examples using your definitions.
3. Neither will I waste my time. His comment is about trends, as is PEW's comments. The only different is that he doesn't include statistics.Bless sins 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1. An opinion is: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. or 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. [15] A fact is 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth or 2. something known to exist or to have happened [16] As Stillman's opinion cannot be stated with complete certianty, it is an opinion.
2. Did not. You attempted to, without success, through misinterpritations of words and wikipedia policies.
3. A trend is defined as "the general course or prevailing tendency; drift:" [17] Lewis' quote does not fit this definition. It is just another opinion

--Sefringle 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Why do you insist that Stillman's arguments are based on "rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty"? He is a reliable scholar. In any case in wikipedia, we don't question relaible sources, we report them.

2.I have shown you how Jansen's statements are appropriate. That you choose to call my argumetns "misinterpretation" without justification is a different matter.

3. Every thing you don't like, you label as "opinion", and everything you like you label as "fact". Please tell me the difference between Lewis' statements and PEW's statements.Bless sins 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

1. However we don't state opinions as facts. A scholar still has a bias, and will present opinions. If something is questionable, it still is an opinion, even if most scholars disagree. Stillmen's arguements are just opinions.
2. Did not. I most certianly did justify how your arguements are misinterpritations.
3. Lewis' statement comes from one person. It is not a survey; it is a statement of opinion. PEW's statement is a survey. It is based on the research of an organization. No one or two man theory that can easily be disputed.

--Sefringle 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. We are clearly attributing the statement to Stillman, Jansen, Lewis etc. That's a fact. The only person questioning Stillman is you. Bring forth a scholar that questions Stillman. Even then we would be forced to present Stillman, as NPOV requires us to present all published POVs.

2. And I showed you in response to that how my interpretation was justified. The decline of antisemitism is both "progress" and a "consequence" as the definition of "development" suggests. You have so far not brought forth any concrete arguments against that.

3.Lewis' statement is based on his research. Infact Lewis is considered far more reliable thatn PEW in the field of Islam and antisemitism. Lewis' statement is just as much an "opinion" as PEW's statement that "anti-jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world".Bless sins 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. However NPOV doesn't state that POV's are to be stated as facts, which is what you are doing.
2. I most certianly did. You have not proven there is any development or progress in your definition, nor have you proven yet that it is not in violation of the policy to include the POV quote.
3. "Lewis is considered far more reliable thatn PEW in the field of Islam and antisemitism." Cite that claim. Lewis' statement is an opinion, per the definition of opinion. PEW's statement is indeed a reliable statistic. If you have some
   opinions
   , that point to a different conclusion, you are welcome to add them to this section. Opinions belong somewhere else.

--Sefringle 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not stating POVs as facts. I'm stating that "Norman Stillman states..." Please understand the difference. It is a fact that Norman Stillman writes what I claim he writes. You can verify the sources yourself.

2. I posted something on WP:NOT, Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Crystal_Ball. Though I got one response, it clearly suggests that Jansen's statements do not violate WP:NOT#CBALL. Sefringle, we have argued enough about this already.

3. You know that Lewis is more relaible than PEW. In any case th section is/was titled "Trends" not "Statistics". Thus Lewis' opinion belong there.Bless sins 12:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section is titled "statistics". Please stop inserting vague feelings into the Statistics section, and justifying it by changing the name to "trends". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, if I rename a section to "Trends", it is no longer called "statistics" is it? If you are really desperate, we can have a seperate section called statistics. But any one this is no reason to censor reliable sources.Bless sins 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you've said "censor" again. As explained, I won't be responding any more, since you continue to violate

WP:CIVIL. The break will be 48 hours this time. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, which wikipedia rule says that I can't use the "c word"? Once again you seem to be making up ur own rules. Nevertheless, that you choose to abstain from reverts for 48 hours is most welcome.Bless sins 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1'

Change: Removing the following:

Muhammad is also known to have Jewish friends.

Safiyya. Professor Khaleel Muhammad points out that, because of this marriage, racist comments about Jews are unacceptable to Muslim sensibilities.^[10] According to Poliakov, "the degree to which Muhammad shows his respect for each religion [Jews and Christians] is remarkable".^[11]

Reason:This is being removed because it is irrelevant to Antisemitism.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this is sourced to very relaible sources that are all about the topic of antisemitism. All of this material is indeed relevent to antisemitism.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is not. None of this actually discusses antisemitism. It only discusses Judaism. It doesn't belong here. The title of this article is

Islam and Judaism. This would be better at Islam and Judaism. But it certianly isn't relevant here.--Sefringle

03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The double standards being shown on OR are astonishing here. In other areas, Bless sins insists that the sources must specifically mention "antisemitism" - even "anti-Jewish prejudice" won't do. Yet here he blithely insists that it is "relevant". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Every source here mentions antisemitism. The three sources are:

"Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism"

The Changing Face of Antisemitism: From Ancient Times To The Present Day.

The History of Anti-semitism.

Please keep the false allegations to a minimum.Bless sins 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But the topic of the actual information is not antisemitism.--Sefringle 03:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. In the above works, the author attempts to explain the nature and extent of antisemitism/the lack of antisemitism in Islam. These are the author's supporting evidence.Bless sins 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the author is attempting to explain examples of tolerence within islam. This belongs in

Islam and Judaism.--Sefringle

05:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

THe author is clearly either responding to allegations antisemitism, or trying to explain antisemitism, as is clear from the title of the works.Bless sins 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quote to prove that the arthor really is responding to antisemitism in Islam, and not just trying to show examples of tolerence within Islam?--Sefringle 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to go and provide quotes for every single edit of mine. What if I asked you to provide quotes for your edits? Please go and read the literature, then if you have any questions please post them here. Even if the works are regarding tolerance within Islam, they still belong here. This is because the author is using this 'tolerance' to show that Islam is not always antisemitic.Bless sins 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Given your rather rigid insistence on

WP:NOR, to the extent that you have claimed "anti-Jewish sentiment" is not antisemitism, you'll have to do better. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But is "antisemitism" not "antisemitism". All my sources explicitly say "antisemitism". In any case are you saying that "anti-Jewish sentiment" is not "antisemitism". If not, why are you using an argument you are not willing to uphold?Bless sins 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Every paragraph of a book titled "antisemitism" is not necessarily on the topic of antisemitism. Most writers provide some background, an introduction, among other things which may include other events that may or may not be relevant to the topic per se.--Sefringle 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but clearly this is not "background" information. This material links Muhammad directly with preudice/lack of prejudice towards Jews.Bless sins 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, this article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism, not just the relationship between Islam and Jews as a whole. This doesn't prove any lack of prejudice nor isit even stated as a rebuddle. Thus it is not relevant.--Sefringle 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. Why would you befriend someone you hate? Why would you marry someone you hate? Why would you respect a religion that you hate?

The answer to all those questions is that you wouldn't. This does demonstrate a lack of antisemitism, and scholars use this as supporting evidence for thier arugments.Bless sins 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Happens all the time. This too is not black and white. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an obvious antisemite in denial, has befriended some fringe Jews. Henry Ford too had good relations with a Jew (Albert Kahn- Ford hired him to design his factories), dispite hating Jews and writing the book The International Jew, which is a very antisemitic piece of literature. Antisemitism alone doesn't necessarily mean you don't have a single Jewish friend. Or are you going to tell me these people are not antisemites? Still, it is origional research to draw the connection between the two if the scholar doesn't specificly say there is a connection.--Sefringle 04:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad has explicitly stated that he is not antisemitic. Henry Ford I don't know about. But as for Prophet Muhammad, he didn't have a "single" Jewish freind, but many. He even married one. He showed "remarkable respect" towards Jews. Now did Henry Ford show "remarkable respect" towards Jews/Judaism? Probably not. In any case, these are not my statements, they are the statements of Poliakov, Khaleel Mohammad and Lacqeur - all respected scholars.Bless sins 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, you haven't answered the question. Have any of those scholars specificly said that because of these "friends," Islam isn't antiemeitic? If not, it is origional research.--Sefringle 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

BY that judgement, I can remove a lot of information form this article. Tell me: when a scholar writes about antisemitsim, do they use the word "antisemitism" in every sentence? Ofcourse not! That's ridiculous! When Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry say that references in the Quran to Jews are "mostly negative", they use the word "antisemitism" nowhere around this sentence.Bless sins 03:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"references in the Quran to Jews are "mostly negative" means references in the quran of Jews are mostly anti-Jew. Anti-Jew means antisemitic.--Sefringle 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, all he said is that references are "negative". Negative doesn't neccessarily mean "antisemitic". Actually, using your logic let me conclude the following: Muhammad showed repsect to Judaism means he liked Jews. "Liking Jews" mean not antisemitic. There you have it. A connection made.Bless sins 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. "Showing respect" does not mean like. Saladin and King Richard I of England respected each other. It would be improper to say they liked each other. Similar with many people who did battle with each other.--Sefringle 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And I can say the same about saying something negative. In the 9/11 report most references to Muslim were negative, yet that doen't mean the document was

Islamophobic.Bless sins

21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia is cnotroversial for being overused. The doccument doesn't specificly call all muslims "apes and pigs" like the quran does to Jews. Nor does the the doccument accuse muslims of lying like the quran does to Jews. Thus a false analogy. That doccument cannot be considered islamophobic. The Qur'an however, in some ways can be considered antisemitic, as Gerber pointed out for us.--Sefringle 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism is alos controversial for being used. Respected personalities have faulted the concept for defending Zionism and aparthied. In any case the 9/11 report did call Muslims terrorists. The Quran doesn't call Jews apes and pigs, it says those Jews that sinned were turned into apes and pigs. Such punsihments by God are common in the Quran and Bible who claim that the sinners were drowned in Noah's Deluge, or that the towns of Sodom and Gemorrah were punished.Bless sins 22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time to debate what the qur'an says with you. Anyone can easily click on the link and see what the qur'an says for themselves.--Sefringle 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

However, you haven't responded to my intial question: why would each of the scholars above put irrelevent facts in thiers works on antisemitism?Bless sins 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Background, history, improve sales by adding additional topics which are only partially relevant, and thus make the book longer, comparision with other topics of study, because they feel like it, personal bias, offer other opinions, make the text more or less POV, expand beyond just the title, because the title wasn't the only topic the author wished to discuss in the book, show cultural connections and interactions, there are thousands of reasons.--Sefringle 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You have dropped to a low level here. You are claiming that the scholars above are sell-outs. Wikipedia respects the views of scholarly sources, regardless of what wikipedians like you have to say about them. Scholars don't write something because "they feel like it". Scholarly work is supported by, often years of, research. The scholars don't add information for the sake of "mak[ing] the book longer", the add information becaue it helps to explain the topic.

It seems you don't understnd the wiki concept of "reliable sources". I suggest you take your grievences to

WP:RS. Unless you have a reason to doubt the reliability of Poliakov, Mohammed and Lacquer, you're wasting your time by attacking these scholars.Bless sins

22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You only responded to two of my numerous possabilities.--Sefringle 01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "numerous possibilites" are trying to say that relaible sources must be questioned by wikipedians. Unless you doubt the above sources are reliable, please don't question what they have to say. Here in wikipedia, whatever reliable sources say should be, witihin certain bounds, added.Bless sins 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, again you misinterprit what Is say. Did you even read my comment, or did you stop reading after you saw the money possibility. That is just one possibility in a thousand. What I said is not that the sources are questionable, but that they may have included extra information which does not belong in this article, because while it may be true, it isn't relevant to antisemitism. If I write about a trip to Chicago, and include information about the airplane ride there, it isn't relevant to the topic of Chicago. Likewise, when Lewis writes about antisemitism, he includes extra information that is not relevant to antisemitism for numerous reasons. To elaborate, change a POV, offer different perspectives, and thousands of other possible reasons. I don't know the exact reason, because I'm not Lewis and I didn't write the book.--Sefringle 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your above commetns make it clear that you have made quite negative allegations against thoise scholars. IF you write about a "trip to Chicago" then you write about a "trip to Chicago". You haven't written about aeroplanes, or Chicago, though you may connect both to your trip. Now if someone write about "History of antisemitism" then they write about "History of antisemitism". They haven't written about tolerance, yet they may connect that in a manner that connects it to antisemitism. If a scholar "elaborate[s]", or "offer[s] different perspectives" it can't be concluded as OR.Bless sins 01:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think of these scholars. I respect their scholarship, and think the information they provide is mostly accurate, but I don't let that blind me into ignoring their bias. I am just as capable of forming an opinion as anyone else. Everyone is bias after all. If a scholar does elaborate or offer a different perspective, it isn't OR, however it may be irrelevant.--Sefringle 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good so you agree the above isn't OR. But the above is quite relevent because it is in the context of antisemitism. This is what is being done in this article. We can argue about all information of this article - whether it is relvent or not. Or we can assume that anything which is in a source about antisemitism is relevent. The former will cause us to argue over every sentence, which is what is happening here. The latter will allow us to reach agreement much faster.Bless sins 12:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2'

Change: Move "Judaism in Islamic theology" section to "tolerance for Jews" section. Also replacing "Modern scholars" with "According to Bernard Lewis[24] and Jerome Chanes"

Reason: This discusses Lewis' view that Jews are not antisemitic. Thus Lewis is saying that muslims are tolerant for Jews and thus cannot be antisemitic. Thus it is related to tolerence section. The origional title is very POV, so it is more relevant under the tolerence section. the name change is necessary, as nobody speaks for everyone.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Judaism in Islamic theology" and "Tolerance for Jews" discuss really different topics. The former section has nothing to with whether Islam should give Jews tolerance on not. While the latter section is about the practice Islam encourages. Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually they discuss the same topics. The "Judaism in Islamic theology" is just a fancy title for you to hide the fact that you are pushing the view that the "tolerence for Jews" is correct while the intolerence section is the incorrect view.--Sefringle 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Tolerance for Jews" is a POV title, and in any event irrelevant to the topic of this article. It should be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be deleted, but it was a compromise to stuff all the irrelevant "the quran praises Jews" stuff in that section.--Sefringle 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Attacks on Jews" is also a POV title. hte fact is that each of the source I have cited is specifcially in relation to both Islam and antisemitism. Alos, please note

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.Bless sins

00:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a soapbox. We are talking about relevancy here.--Sefringle 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. That's why you can't reject sources because they are not in accordance with your POV. All the information here is relevent. It is sourced to rewliable sources in relation to Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 01:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, material that says stuff like "the qur'an respects jews" is not relevant to the topic of antisemitism.--Sefringle 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what tolerance is about. tolerance is about not persecuting Jews. In any case, I'm not the one who is saying that respect for Jews is related to antisemitism, it is the scholars who are saying that. All my content is sourced. You are free to verify.Bless sins 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The passage says that Muslims are not antisemitic. Thus it is saying that muslims respect jews. This a is simple definition.--Sefringle 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so if a passage says "Muslims are not antisemitic", then it must be relvent to antisemitism! Don't you agree?Bless sins 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I said I think a fair compromise was to put all the tolerence stuff in the same section. That is where this belongs. Most of the stuff in the tolerence section is irrelevant, but I am not going to delete it as a compromise.--Sefringle 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with putting "all the tolerence stuff in the same section". But Islamic theology isn't neccessarily tolerance. It is just how Islam views Judaism, and Jewish theology, and whether it conflicts with Islam. You should know that antisemitism doesn't necceasirly mean intolerance for Jews. People can be anitsemitic without bieng opprssive, and they can be oppressive without bieng antisemitic.Bless sins 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if they are oppressive to Jews as a whole, because they are Jews, it is antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictators of Muslim countries (e.g. Saddam) have been really oppressive. That doesn't neccessarily mean that they hated Jews in particular.Bless sins 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If their intended group whom they targeted their oppression is Jews, it is antisemitism. Even if other groups were targeted as well. Otherwise, the Nazis or the KKK could not be considered antisemitic.--Sefringle 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Often the intended group is not Jews, but they would still end up getting killed. For example, if Jewish soldiers died on the field of battle on the allied side in WWI it was because they were fighting for the allies, not ebcause they were Jewish. In anycase why are we arguing about this. There is a clear difference between having prejudice for a religion, and persecuting members of that religion. Ali Sina is biased against Islam, but does that mean he advocates persecuting Muslims?Bless sins 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

True, however if the intended target for the persecution is Jews, even if the intended group is Jews + others, it is antisemitism. Criticism of Judaism is not antisemitism, however hating all Jews is.--Sefringle 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having prejudice against Judaism is considered antisemitism - atleast by Lewis, Chanes, Rosenblatt and Pinson. Yet they are not talking about tolerance at all.Bless sins 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Am too. The section is about tolerence. It is saying muslims are not antisemitic, thus they are tolerent of Jews.--Sefringle 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is false. None of the scholars have said anything about "tolerance".Bless sins 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is simple definition. Either you are tolerant or you are intolerent. Since they are arguing not intolerent, they are arguing tolerent.--Sefringle 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No there is also neutral or indifferent. I have clearly stated many times: the authors of this have said nothing about tolerance. Bless sins 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

this passage certianly is not describing Neutral or indifferent.--Sefringle 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• i think both titles (i.e. "Attacks on Jews" and "Tolerance for Jews") are unnecessarily skewed. perhaps a good idea would be to merge everything together under a primary heading of `Judaism/Jews in Islamic thought` or something like that - which can then be re-sectioned into appropriate subdivisions such as 'primary texts', 'jurisprudence', and anything else addressed by academics within the scope of the article topic.
  ITAQALLAH
  18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 3'

Change: Moving Uri Rubin and Tahir Abbas section to tolerence section

Reason: It is more relevant to have all the similar views together. This discusses tolerence.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No Abbas' and Rubin's views are a counter argument to those who say the Quran attacks Jews. Neither Rubin's statement nor Abbas' statement (that I put in "Attacks on Jews" section) have said anything about the Quran encouraging Muslim to show tolerance towards Jews.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter arguements belong in the tolerence section, as that is where the rebuddles are. As their comments are not acutally saying that they believe the quran attacks Jews, but are actually trying to prove the opposite, their views belong in the tolerence section.--Sefringle 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again the counter-arguments have nothing to do with tolerance. Neither Rubin nor Abbas, in thier counter arguments, say anything about tolerating Jews. They only say that criticsim/attacks can be interpreted differently. Form what I see here, you think that everyhting that is not your POV should go in the "tolerance" section.Bless sins 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They most ceritanly are related to tolerence. Saying the quran is antisemitic means saying the quran calls for intolerence to Jews. Thus a rebuddle is saying the quran is not antisemitic, or is tolerent of Jews. This is simple difinition. What I am saying is anything that calls for positive treatment of Jews belongs in the tolerence section, because that is the definition of tolerence.--Sefringle 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes of Rubin and Abbas concerned are not asserting that Islam encourages positive treatment of Jews. Rahter the quotes are suggesting that Islamic criticism of Jews is not against all Jews, but only the sinners/violaters of Judaism. They are simply not talking about tolerance.Bless sins 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They certianly are not attacking Jews, thus it is more relevant in the tolerence section. See my above comment.--Sefringle 04:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You have made tens of comments above. Be specific. The comments of Rubin and Abbas are regarding the allegations that the Quran attacks/criticizes the Jews. In any case they are in a seperate sub-section (according to my edits).Bless sins 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant the comment right above my most recent one, thus the one dated 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC).--Sefringle 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 4'

Change: restoring "Muslim beliefs that certain Jews were transformed into apes and pigs" section

Reason: Very relevant to this topic, part of the qur'an, pretty well sourced to secondary scholarly sources. It is not already covered in the attacks on Jews section, as that section mentions nothing about Jews being "apes and pigs."--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There aren't really proper sources for this section. In any case, it seems like another "Attack on Jews", and that's where it belongs. The section did mention something about the Jews being Apes and pigs, until you reverted my edits.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, for the sake of compromise I have left the section, but have moved Arab sermons down to the section on "Arab sermons". See "Edit summaries" for my reason why.Bless sins 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See below.--Sefringle 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 5'

Change: keep the relevant quranic verses mentioned showing, outside of <ref></ref> system

"Reason:' make links to the verses easily avaliable to viewers. There is no reason to hide them.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So should we also put references (e.g. Lewis (1999), pg. 202) explicity as well. Is there any reson for "hiding" these references? COmmon sense says that we seperate reference from comments. No one is hiding them, jsut putting them at their proper place.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. See below. It is hiding the verses. The verses are not references; they are there to provide insight into which verses in the qur'an are being refered to, and should be easily accessable to the readers.--Sefringle 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess references should also be easily accesibly for the readers? Why don't we drop "ref" altogethor. That way nothing can be hidden.(sarcasm) Bless sins 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The quranic verses are not references. They are part of the material content of this article. Unless you are saying quoting the qur'an directly without a secondary source is acceptable, in which case it would be a primary source. But in the way it is written in this article, it isn't a reference. It is part of the encyclopedia information.--Sefringle 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I am willing to concede. The best route here is to post something on WP:CITE. I'll post something soon.Bless sins 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted something on WP:CITE, the response was inadequate. Then I posted something on

03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 6'

Change:Seperate "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam" into "events" and "views"

Reason: The events are facts. The views, on the other hand are opinions, and thus can easily be disputed. They are just commentary on the events. They need to be seperated for easier reference and for clarification. It is also less POV to do things this way. The events need to be on the top, because that is the indisputed history, while opinions are not as important to the topic.--Sefringle 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your edits, but advise a more moderate approach. You suggestion confuses things up. For example, a commentary regarding an event belongs right below, not in another (sub)section. Rather you should consider seperating the section by time period and concept. For example, keeping the comparison of Islam with Christian Europe seperate from the rest of the section. That will achieve what you want to, but not in such a drastic manner.Bless sins 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the events are not "undisputed history". This is because there is debate whether the events are antisemitism or not. Thus scholarly opinions that give an introduction to the treatment of Jews should be near the top (because introductions belong near the top, not at the bottom). Just because something is at the top doesn't mean that it is more important, or more accurate.Bless sins 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The debates mentioned in this article are not over whether they are antisemitsim. The debates and commentary are over whether antisemitism was commonplace in the muslim world, and most of it says no. Commentary is not as important as actual events.--Sefringle 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seperated the section into the following categories: Early Muslim rule, Later periods, Muslim Spain, Views. Thoughts?Bless sins 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable, as long as it is above the commentary, unless Jayig has some objection.--Sefringle 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many small sections, and in any event was accompanied by many unacceptable edits intended to hide anything implying antisemitism in Islam, and emphasize anything stating the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The sections will grow. Nothing happens over night. Please have patience.Bless sins 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 7'

Removing:

In

Aghlabid dynasty (9th through 11th century, North Africa) issued an order that Jews wear a patch that had an image of a monkey, and affix the same image to their homes. For Christians, the image was that of a pig.^[12] It is not known whether this was ever applied. There are reports of relatively frequent repetition of the ordinance in Sicily and North Africa. This has been both interpreted to mean that "it was not rigorously enforced - while the same has been adduced for the opposite." ^[13]

Reason: Verifcation failed. I got the book and the given pages (i.e. 24 and 33) don't mention anything about antisemitism. Furthermore the pages also don't mention anything about the Aghlabid dynasty forcing the Jews to wear a patch. The index does not have the words "Palermo" and "Aghlabid". All references to "Sicily" and "North African communities" in the index don't mention the above event. Furthermore, all of the dates I found in the book were from fifteenth century and later. The book doesn't seem to at all discuss what happened in the ninth century.

If you want the section restored, please provide the relevent quote below. Also, mention the relvent part (e.g. one, two) and chapter (e.g Yashar's Early Years in Candia").Bless sins 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you got the book, can you please provide the exact passage? like copy the page or something.--Sefringle 01:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is nothing there to provide you with. It doesn't dicuss anything relvent. Page 24 is about the early years of Yashar. The dates are from 1591. Page 33 is about Arabic and Polish literature.Bless sins 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit 8'

I created a section on literature in "Antisemitism in premodern Islam". In this section I have grouped togethor all examples of antisemitsm/lack of antisemitism.

I also created a section called "dhimmi and jizya".

Reason: It organizes the article better. Also, the section "Early Islam", "Spain", and "Later rule" inherited from Sefringle's section called "Events". Literature and dhimmi, however, are not "events" and thus I put them in thier own sections respectively. I really don't see how creating these sections pushes a particular POV. So I don't think you guys should be opposed to this.Bless sins 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored it. It doesn't seem there was anything repeated in that section, so it didn't require any changes to the other sections.--Sefringle 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there was information repeated. I'll remove it. Also, literature should go below the events (of early Islam etc.).Bless sins 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 9'

Removing

According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil."

Restoring

According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism in Islam is non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history.

Reason: The first statement is attributed to Lewis' The New Anti-Semitism. But when he makes those statements, he doesn't make them in relation to Islam. Thus I'm removing that statement as it is irrelvent to Islam. Infact, Lewis states "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil."

Secondly, the statement I'm restoring is sourced to Lewis and he is clearly talking about both Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 19:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The first version was far more neutral, and it is a statement of Lewis. The "newer" version is far more POV.--Sefringle 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. But that's beside the point. The first version was a misrepresentation. Lewis specifically states,

Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil.

So far I have not inserted this. But I will if the issue of "cosmic evil" re-appears.Bless sins 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The first version was more informative and accurate; when Lewis makes those statements, it is in the context of explaining why Muslim antisemitism shouldn't, in his view, be classified as antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we should be specific about that, and include Lewis' statement that Islam doesn't accuse Jews of "cosmic evil".Bless sins 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, why talk about the allegation "cosmic evil", when it, according to Lewis, doesn't even exist in the Islamic world?

as the first passage appears to be in the context explained by Jayjg, i don't see why it should be a case of one or the other. why not retain both (inlcuding Lewis' further discussion re: the attribution of cosmic evil)?

ITAQALLAH

18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 10'

I don't think the following belongs in this article:

Lewis states that in contrast to

racial terms, though this does sometimes occur." The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets are apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians. Lewis continues with several examples of regulations which were symbolizing the inferiority that non-Muslims living under Muslim rule had to live with, such as different formulae of greeting when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims (both in conversations or correspondences), and forbidding Jews and Christians to choose names used by Muslims for their children by the Ottoman times.^[14]

Reason: The only antisemitism that Lewis discusses on page 33 is Christian antisemitism. Although he refers to Muslim attitudes he refrains from saying any thing - positive or negative - about Mulims/Islam in relation to antisemitism. Also, Lewis' work is about Jews of Islam and not about Islam and antisemitism per se. Thus it can't easily be established that Lewis is talking about Islam and antisemitism. Unless, someone can show otherwise, I will remove this passage.Bless sins 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about antisemitism, and contrasting Muslim with Christian antisemitism. You can't have it both ways with Lewis. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's the problem - Lewis has nothing to say about Muslim antisemitism in that passage. He only talks about "Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims". (It would have been half relevent if talked about "Muslim attitude towards Jews").Bless sins 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews are non-Muslims, aren't they? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so? If someone discriminates against people of all races and religions, except his/her own, doesn't make them an antisemite. Besides the biggest problem is that Lewis isn't talking about "antisemitism" in relation to Muslims, at all.Bless sins 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this removial is that you are removing sourced content, and removing the list of verses that say Jews are Apes and pigs. The verses need to be clear, meaning outside of the <ref></ref> system. Remove the duplicate information, but don't remove the sourced content or try to hide the content.--Sefringle 03:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The next time they try to eliminate it or hide it at the bottom, I'm going to move it to the very top of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I am not removing sourced material. Please see [18] and further please check out the mediation page. --Aminz 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are four sources mentioned for those verses, and your edit removed 3 of them. Second, you completely removed the list of quranic verses that call Jews apes and pigs. Both of which are unacceptable edits.--Sefringle 03:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My edit said: "There are a number of other verses that refer to Jews being transformed into apes or pigs. <ref>({{Quran-usc-range|5|60|65}},{{Quran-usc|2|65}}, and {{Quran-usc|7|166}})</ref>. We have two options:

1. To place point out the verses in the form like ^{[Quran 5:60]} (i.e. providing link)

2. To copy/paste the content of the four verses

I'd rather #1 but #2 works for me as well. --Aminz 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note my previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The section [19] contains a lot of comments. Date of comment please. --Aminz 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note my comment of 03:04, 21 May 2007 in this section. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, i can not see its relevance with the discussion we had in the section above. how does your comment benefits the article? --Aminz 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the full quran verse is both appropiate and necessary in this case. This is a very notable concept, and the full verse would be encyclopediac here.--Sefringle 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting full verse works for me. I'll modify it. Please let me know if you have other objections with the summary. --Aminz 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Per above, Apes and Pigs seems to be another "Attack on Jews". WHy does this deserve a sepearate section.Bless sins 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, for the sake of compromise, I have left this as a subsection. I hope that ends the disputes. For my reasoning as to why I moved the Arab sermons to the section called "Arab sermons", pls. see "Edit summaries".Bless sins 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Referring to Jews as "apes and pigs" or similar locutions is a unique, persistent and striking Muslim practice, with many, many examples. As Lewis points out, it is the standard way of insulting Jews; for that reason it belongs in its own section. I've moved the apes and pigs stuff to the top, as I said I would. If it's moved down again, or further attempts are made to hide this, I'll start expanding the section. The choice is yours. Also, your continual removal of the Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry stuff from the section on the Qur'an does not go unnoticed, or unreverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if we want to put that in a section, we should put it as a subsection of "Attacks" section. That section isn't focused on Jews in the Qur'an at all. Even the subtitle is "Muslim belief..." while the most proper one is "Quranic references...". --Aminz 02:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Muslim beliefs in this regard are all based directly on the Qur'an. And why do you insist they are "attacks"? Perhaps the people in question are merely expressing what they believe to be simple, non-pejorative statements of fact, based on the word of Allah, as transmitted to Muhammad via the whisperings of the angel Gabriel. Let's not pejoratively pre-judge these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an is a silent book, the interpretation matters. And the Qur'an is not the only source for Muslim belief. The article is divided into subsections. Each section is supposed to focus on specific points. The section on Qur'an is about the Qur'an-the section on Hadith is about the Hadith. The section on pre-modern times about Antisemitism among Muslims in pre-modern time and that of modern time discusses recent antisemitism. What somebody on say April 19, 2002 has said fits into the section on modern antisemitism.

I think the word "attack" is not proper and should be discussed for POV-check. What seems clear to me is that the certain section on apes and pigs can stand as a subsection of that section because it is a special case of that general section. --Aminz 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an is quite eloquent in its stories regarding Jews being turned into apes, and many modern Muslim leaders repeat these stories, based on the Qur'an. These Muslim leaders aren't just inventing this notion, they take it directly from the Qur'an. When they quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that's 20th century stuff. And, as Lewis points out, the apes stuff is the quintessential Muslim description of Jews; thus it deserves its own section. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an says that some Jews were transformed to apes and pigs because of their sins; the qur'an also says that backbiting and slandering is the same as eating a dead flesh. The Qur'an also says that "That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case!"

I (and many others) disagree that the modern usage of such terms are a faithful representative of the Qur'an. Leaving that aside, I feel my concerns remain unaddressed. Even if we create a separate section on apes and pigs, it should stand as a subsection of the attack section as it is a special case of that general section.--Aminz 07:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own interpretations aren't particularly relevant; we need to quote the sources say in relation to Islam and antisemitism. Regarding the rest, there's no point in negotiating on this, since Bless sins will simply hide the Apes and pigs stuff elsewhere in the article, or delete it, and then remove or hide other things he doesn't like, like the stuff from Schweitzer and Perry. If you agree to stop doing this kind of thing, and Bless sins does as well, then we can start negotiating. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You started by claiming that your interpretation is right; i just replied to your claim. I don't feel I need to respond to baseless accusations. --Aminz 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jayjg:

• "your continual removal of the Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry stuff from the section on the Qur'an" No I didn't remove it. In this version[20] both authors' opinons have been mentioned in the second paragraph in "Attacks on Jews".
• Second your above argument explains less than 10% of your edits. In your blind reverts you removed a lot of sourced content that I added. you also undid my standardizing of references (minor edits that take a lot of time and effort). Again, I urge you to refrain from blind reverts.Bless sins 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Like what? What did you add? Please be specific. You are making a lot of major edits in a short period of time, many of which push a POV first, and you aren't really explaining them on the talk page first, except on rare occausions when we made a space for recent edits. It is kind of annoying to have to keep reviewing each edit individually, day after day, so if there was a good edit mixed into the POV ones, it may be missed by accident.--Sefringle 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For example:

Mohammad suggests that these verses are a polemic, addressed to those who "who were making fun of Islamic beliefs". He further suggests that the source of these stories of transformation may be midrashic works (including the Talmud) and Jewish oral tradition. Further he argues that the verse does not sterotype all Jews but only those who violated Sabbath.^[15]

AND

Jerome Chanes writes that during the first seven or eight centuries of Muslim history antisemitic activity was very rare.^[16] Pinson and Rosenblatt also suggests that antisemitism "of an all-embracing character" has been rare throughout the history of Islam.^[17]

Ofcourse, the above is only a small protion of the edits that Jayjg reverted. It would help if Jayjg actually read my edits before reverting them.Bless sins 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed them from the lead section on the Qur'an. I've cleaned up your whitewash. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so? Everything can't be in the lead, can it? Just becuaes someone moves information to an apporpriate section doesn't mean they "whitewashing" it.Bless sins 05:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"According to Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry, Quranic references are "mostly negative"." seems as general a statement as the one attributed to Lewis, or as any statement about Jews in the Qur'an could be. What can be the rationale for moving it into a subsection?

I also must say that it seems rather unlikely that any reader would confuse Khaleel Mohammad's words with those of the

Manual of Style.Proabivouac

05:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perry's arguments are about the Quranic "attacks" on Jews. In any case they are quite extreme views. Same goes with Abbas' views that speak very positively of the Quran. I had removed them as well. Lewis' comments on the other hadn are neutral, they talk about both attacks on Jews, as well as tolerance for Jews.

"Extreme views?" I've read the Qur'an, and, while debatable, it hardly seems extreme. You are, no doubt, aware that many (though hardly all) Muslim readers arrive at the same conclusion. Perhaps I am missing some earlier edit, but I see no change in the position of Abbas' comments,[22] which, though I disagree, don't strike me as "extreme."Proabivouac 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

By "extreme" I meant clearly favoring one POV and not givng any regard to the other. Up to this edit[23] you can clearly see Abbas being referred to as "Tahir" (the reference is in the text and not the "diff"). Both views have been allocated thier appropriate sections. Why then should they flood the intro?Bless sins 06:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reasons for removing Schweitzer and Perry's views are specious, particularly in light of the fact that they actually give an overview of what other scholars, including Lewis, say. Please keep in mind that any edit that attempts to again hide this information, in the POV way you have indeed tried to move all negative material to the bottom of the article, will be reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were you, I wouldn't be hurling accusation of "hiding" info. You (and Sefringle) moved the entire "tolerance" section below the "attacks" section. Who is hiding what? Perry's views are attacks, and thus they should be in the attacks section. If you disagree, then I can move some tolerance stuff to the header as well - and help you in creating a mess.Bless sins 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Schweitzer and Perry are scholars, writing specifically on this topic. They aren't "attacking", they survey the scholarly sources on this and report what they say. You don't like their views, so you try to hide them. On the other hand, you like what Lewis has to say, so you try to put it up-front, often in the leads of articles where it's not even relevant. This is completely transparent, and your protestations fool no-one. The topic of this article is Islam and antisemitism, not all the times that various Muslim rulers were tolerant of Jews. If you want to have material on that, feel free to put it in some "Muslim-Jewish relations" article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I never said Schweitzer and Perry are "attacking". They are saying that the Quran is making negative comments about the Jews. No, I don't like Lewis' views, I like Abbas' views, which I moved to the bottom. All the sources in this article are scholarly writing specifically on topic (those that aren't will be removed). While Lewis gives a balanced view, giving due wieght to btoh sides, Schweitzer and Perry make one sided comments. If you want to include Schweitzer and Perry in the LEAD, then I can include Chanes and Abbas too. How about that? In any case, yet again your reverts are unexplained and you remove a lot of sourced info.Bless sins 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Schwietzer and Perry discuss the Qur'an in general; they go in the lead section discussing the Qur'an in general. Your edits are, as usual, unexplained whitewashes, and require consensus first. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd stop edit warring if I were you, and give it a rest. I have begun to look through many sources and have found a lot of stuff about Islam and antisemitism, that you may not like. If you continue this, I will continue to find scholarly sources on the topic and add them to this article. Alternatively we can just move on.Bless sins 03:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, stop edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I had much material to still add, I won't do it now. Please get Sefringle to agree to not revert me as well. Thanks, again.Bless sins 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with this move of the Maimonides material.[24] It's a real shame that, despite the fact that a a principled argument can be made for it based on topicality, in the context of your edits it is difficult not to see this move as a trivial consequence of the rule: anything you like you move up, while anything you don't like you move down.Proabivouac 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Again I can point to Abbas' comment that I moved down, though it would appear to be something I "like". Also, the reason you have arrived at that conclusion is because certain users have been moving things according to the rule you just mentioned. Thus you observations are much a result of me undoing their edits. Also, please note Jayjg's threats at the beginning of this section regarding moving a certain section [that he/she seemd to like] "to the very top of the article".Bless sins 06:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I urge to judge my edits according to thier legitimacy, not according to speculations regarding my "intentions". A reliable source is reliable and an unreliable source is unrelaible - regardless of my intentions.Bless sins 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who added this, but there is no such word as "disgreatful." I am going to guess that someone meant "ungrateful."Proabivouac 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed.Bless sins 06:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the Manual of Style. I'll remove "Professor" ASAP.Bless sins 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Proabivouac 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are adding material that says "in a hadith," meaning some scholar says some hadith says "(information)." Please specify which hadith.--Sefringle 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the scholar specifies a hadith. Poliakov lists another book form which he got that hadith. Please note, not all haidth are

Sahih, thus not all can be found easily on the internet.Bless sins

02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the reference Poliakov provides: Subki, Tabaqat al Chafi'iyya, I, 268 (quoted by Goldhizer, op. cit.).Bless sins 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very important to add which hadith it is. If we can get a hold of that source, it would be helpful for this article.--Sefringle 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I have provided you with all that I know.Bless sins 02:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Any edit which removes Schweitzer and Perry from the lead on the Qur'an will be reverted without comment, regardless of any other edits included with it, until you actually get consensus for this attempted whitewash, which appears unlikely. Just letting you know so you won't be surprised, and I won't have to repeat myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Try as I might, I can't think of any other appropriate response to the strategies of argumentum ad infinitum combined with complex and underdocumented edits which are being deployed here.Proabivouac 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, we have Tahir Abbas who says that the Qur'an speaks favourably of the Jews "in general". So, we can mention both views or remove both. Either one is fine with me. I can see several of your comments use the word "whitewash" when refering other edits made by other editors. To me, it applies to some of your edits(e.g. your move of "

08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Aminz. Soon, Jayjg is going to cut and paste the entire "Attacks on Jews" section in the intro. For every bit of a negative POV we put in the header, we also put positive one. I tried making the header NPOV, but you insist on making POV.Bless sins 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also trying to keep this article relevant to antisemitism. I do not want this article to become Islamic views of Jews, which seems to be where you are pushing it toward.--Sefringle 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, know that all the content I have added is sourced to sources that specifically mention antisemitism. This is true without exception.Bless sins 11:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. "The qur'an respects Jews," or history of tolerence for Jews does not specificly mention antisemitism, unless you are pretending it does.--Sefringle 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind Bless sins, that any edit of yours that removes or moves down any material from Schweitzer and Perry will be reverted. That means edits like this, or even like this. The article is about antisemitism, not Judaism in Islamic theology. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first edit, the comments made by Perry are about islamic history not the Quran. thus they belong in the hsitory section. Don't tell me now that all comments made by Perry are to be put near the top of this article, regardless of what they are about.

In the second edit, I didn't touch Schweitzer and Perry at all. What are you talking about?

In any case, you could have reverted those two edits. Yet you reverted 7 edits! There has got be an end to all your censorship.Bless sins 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained, Schweitzer and Perry are talking about the Qur'an in general, just as Lewis is. And, as has been explained, any time you move Schweitzer and Perry down, I'll simply revert. If you want your edits to stick, it would be better to get agreement on Talk: first, and to not move Schweitzer and Perry. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that anytime I move Perry down in one edit, you will go on a rampage and revert all edits regardless of whether they have anything to do with Perry or not. This is what you seem to be doing. 6 of my edits had nothing to with Schweitzer and Perry, yet you reverted them. Bless sins 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of them move the Schweitzer and Perry material downwards, which is your ultimate goal. And I'm certainly not going to try to pick out the few possibly good pieces of material that might have somehow gotten into one of your edits. I've made it very clear, if the Schweitzer and Perry material moves downwards, then it's all going to be reverted. Given that fact, it's in your best interest to make edits that don't move the Schweitzer and Perry material downwards. You've already moved most of the Apes and Pigs stuff down to the bottom, and stuck an irrelevant section on Toleration at the top, I'm not going to let you work the rest of the stuff down to the bottom as well, or even any further down the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I clearly seperate edits in which Perry is moved down form edits in which sourced content is added. I made 7 different edits, in which ONLY ONE edit moved perry down. The rest of the edits DID NOT move Perry down. Then why did you revert EDITS THAT DID NOT MOVE PERRY DOWN?Bless sins 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to me to tease out your few possibly good edits from the bad. I've made myself clear; make edits which do not move Schweitzer and Perry down in any way. That's very clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Schweitzer and Perry's comments. I have the book on me. They are referring to Muslim history and not the Quran. According to book the humiliation as dhimmis was developed in the eight century. The Quran was complete by mid seventh century.Bless sins 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They specifically mention the Qur'an! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the exact quote here. I have the book on me and couldn't find what you are talking about.Bless sins 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence on page 266 that starts with "The Koran requires their "abasement and poverty"". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but when he talks about the poll tax, he is not tlaking of the Quran. On the same page he clearly states that the humiliation was developed in the 8th century.Bless sins 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's in the very same sentence, that the abasement mandated by the Qur'an was achieved via the poll tax. Jizya itself is mandated by the Qur'an. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

His statements would have been ambiguous, but he explains himself below. He clearly states that the humiliating procedures were devloped in the eight century. Unless you are saying that Perry contradicts himself...Bless sins 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting is that you are cherry picking quotes from Schweitzer and Perry. The section of their book on Islam starts with "JEWS PROSPERED IN THE ENORMOUS ARAB EMPIRE" (the capitals are thiers not mine). Interesting isn't it?Bless sins 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there material from there you feel is also relevant? If so, what is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse. All of the material is related to antisemitism. And plus, it is from the exact source you seem to be defending, and pushing to the top here.Bless sins 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not list some of it here? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But their comments belong on the article not the talk page. I'll put them there. Remember that you added Schwietzer and Perry without getting any apporval on talk first.Bless sins 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Schweitzer and Perry moved down again. Unfortunately, that meant none of your edits could stick. Try the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You just want an excuse to censor sourced material. I have been seperating my edits. While Perry is moved down in one edit, sourced material is added in a different edit. Then why are you reverting edits that have nothing to do with Schwietzer and Perry?Bless sins 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you just want an excuse to whitewash the article and hide Schweitzer and Perry. It's not up to me to tease out your few possibly good edits from the bad. I've made myself clear; make edits which do not move Schweitzer and Perry down in any way. That's very clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me point oput a few flaws in your argument:

1. Last time I checked this was wikipedia. Thus for rules we turn to Wiki policies. Where in WP does it say that Schweitzer and Perry may not be moved lower?
2. If Schweitzer and Perry can't be moved, then what about Lewis, Chanes, Rosenblatt and Pinson (whom you and Sefringle have been moving down)? Where in WP does it say "you may move Lewis, Chanes and Pinson, but not Schweitzer and Perry"?
3. You said that Schweitzer and Perry can't be moved down in "any way" (your emphasis not mine). What if we end up adding a few sentences to the LEAD of this article? That would certainly move Schweitzer and Perry down. Thus you are saying that no user is to ever insert a sentence or word above Schweitzer and Perry's comments. What an absurd rule!
4. You said "not up to me to tease out your few possibly good edits from the bad". Actually it is. You, and only you, are responsible for all your edits. Thus if someone vandalizes the page, and you revert to it, you are still responsible. There are many rules regarding the do's and don't of editing. See
   WP:Vandal
   if you're unsure.
5. Also, it is very easy to make partial reverts (considering the fact that I make my edits one at a time). Yet apparently you seem to be avoiding partial reverts, and going to full reverts. You even revert content that is not in the section that concerns you.Bless sins 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to work with other editors here, or just fight them? You have consistently tried to minimize or remove the statements by Schweitzer and Perry, and I've drawn a line in the sand about that. You can accept that and stop trying to whitewash, or have your edits reverted. It's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Lines "in the sand" can always be erased. Can you please respond to my arguments above? The rule you are inventing about not moving Schweitzer and Perry is pretty silly. In any case, very soon I'll be adding content from Schweitzer and Perry. Then we'll see who is the one trying to minimize Scweitzer and Perry. But do respond to the comments above.Bless sins 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like, but keep my comments in mind, and please don't bother complaining on the Talk: page if you move Schweitzer and Perry downwards and then find all your edits reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear by your above comments that you have no justification whatsoever for your reverts (that remove sourced content). Else you woudl have responded to my arugments above.Bless sins 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see previous comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You've made tens, if not hundreds, of comments. Please be more specific. In any case you haven't responded to my edits on 22:02, 31 May 2007. And you are constatnly vading the response. It seems that as if you have no justification whatsoever for your edits. Is that true?Bless sins 00:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see previous comments in this section, and please avoid the

fallacy of many questions. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've made tens, if not hundreds, of comments. Also why are you directing me to an article that lacks references, and doesn't have anyhting to with this article? Can we stay on topic?Bless sins 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made "tens, if not hundreds, of comments" in this section. I'm directing you to the

fallacy of many questions article to assist you in avoiding that common logical fallacy. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You've made atleast 17 comments in this section, and many many more in other sections. Be specific. Also, why are you now removing Scweitzer and Perry?Bless sins 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They're all relevant. As for Schweitzer and Perry, the material you added was a poorly worded parody of their views, and you still moved Schweitzer and Perry out of the lead of the Qur'an section. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Poorly worded" is no excuse to delete. If my English is not up to your standards, then you should correct it, not delete it. At the end the day, you Jayjg have removed Schweitzer and Perry, whereas you told me specifically not to. Why don't you follow your own rules?Bless sins 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to repeat myself. You have to live with the consequences of your actions. Get consensus first next time. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"You have to live with the consequences of your actions". Huh? What does that have to with anything? I asked you to justify your reverts, not give me a random proverb.Bless sins 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And we asked you many times not to make so many massive edits that can be summarized as a simple revert. It is a pain in the but to go through each individual edit when most of it is just a revert to the more POV version anyway. If you want to make changes, get consensus first, and make small individual edits that are not reverts.--Sefringle 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My massive edits are basically a pile up of my smaller edits. Each edit I made started off being small. In any case, is there a rule of wikipedia that limits the rate at which an article can be improved.Bless sins 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And there's no rule on Wikipedia that says we have to try to tease any possibly good edits you might have made out of a mass of POV ones. Work with the other editors here, or fruitlessly edit-war. It's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a rule on wikipedia that says you can't delete sourced content. Don't you agree?Bless sins 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense; there is no such rule. The fact that something is sourced does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion in an article. Wikipedia is not Google, nor is it

an indiscriminate collection of information. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Once again there is no rule on wikipedia that limits the rate at which an article can be improved.Bless sins 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edits do the opposite of improving the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, in your recent edits you yourself are removing Schweitzer and Perry. According to your own rules I should revert you instantaneously.Bless sins 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This section is different from "Tolerance for Jews" section. The Qur'anic verses are divided into positive and negative ones and discussed in "Attacks on Jews" and "Tolerance for Jews" sections. This is a separate topic. --Aminz 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It is a rebuddle to the view that Jews are antisemitic, and the basic point of it is that Islam cannot be antisemitic because Islam calls for tolerence toward Jews. Thus it belongs in the tolerence section. It certianly doesn't disserve its own section.--Sefringle 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro of the section says: "Bernard Lewis, many of these passages ... depicting negative pictures of the Jews. Other passages, however, speak more respectfully of them ..."- These two are covered in the two sub-sections.

Now, That theological section is based on what Lewis says when stating the reasons why Muslims are not antisemitic. One item is "views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews;" or "did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original message that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise;" (Are these tolerant for Jews? - I don't think so)--Aminz 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to follow the logic of these snipits of the quote. Can you show me the full quote? But yes, this is tolerence to Jews, since it states that "no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise." It certianly doesn't disserve the title "Judaism in Islamic theology." That is just too POV.--Sefringle 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the material in the Judaism in Islamic theology section exhorts Muslims to be more tolerant of Jews. It simply looks at how Islam looks upon Judaism, and its relationship to antisemitism. The fact that the scholars suggest "Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to ... [a list of reasons]" is definetly relvent to an article about Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 10:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Small correction. This section more accurately looks upon unly the view that muslims are not antisemitic. It only presents one viewpoint, and under the title "Judaism in Islamic theology," it is implying that that view is correct and the opposing view is incorrect. Clear POV.--Sefringle 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle every author has a bias. NPOV tells us to represent all reliable POVs. If you have an alternative POV related to Islamic theology and Judaism, feel free to add it to that section.Bless sins 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just another view. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, when we say scholars like "X" say something, we should present what they say. And Lewis can not be a Muslim aplogetic in this matter. I suggest you take his book from a library (or check books.google.com) and read pages 117-118. --Aminz 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, the Qur'an didn't mean to *tolerate* Jews by "not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original message". The Qur'an has its own theological message. If it is tolerant, it is a secondary point. If the Qur'an rejects diecide, it doesn't do so to be tolerant to Jews but because it can not theologically accept it. If this has caused tolerance towards Jews is again secondary. --Aminz 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, What is your point? --Sefringle 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that comparisons/contrasts of Islamic theology with Judaism are inherently unrelated to tolerance. They may have resulted in tolerance, but were never intended to be verses that preached tolerance. On the other hand verses like "Let there be no compulsion in religion", were intended to preach tolerance.Bless sins 12:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Islam and antisemitism; the material is not about antisemitism, and belongs in

Islam and Judaism, if anywhere. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this issue a long time ago. The discussion here is what to name the section that contains this material. Recap: This material obviously belongs in the article as the scholars quoted are talking explicitly about antisemitism. Furhtermore, teh sources are reliable.Bless sins 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How could they be talking about antisemitism? They're talking about Judaism in Muslim theology, i.e.

Islam and Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How could they be talking about antisemitism? Because they explicitly use the word "antisemitism"! (For example Lewis says that Muslim Arabs were not 'antisemitic, because Islamic theology doesn't teach deicide.)Bless sins 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If, however, you object to the format of the section (especially the numbered list), I would agree with you.Bless sins 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But the classification of this material under a "Judaism in Muslim theology" section is your own invention, and

OR at that. If you want to discuss Judaism in Muslim theology, there's an article for that, and it's not this one. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing random acts of discrimination and persecution

The article should not list random acts of discrimination and persecution against Jews with no reference to their historical context. --Aminz 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this material belongs to"Under Muslim rule the exilarchs enjoyed quasi-royal powers and great prestige..." Early Muslim rule or later one? --Aminz 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs in the

Islam and Judaism article.--Sefringle

22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously about antisemitism (look at the source). But I believe Poliakov is talking about early Islam.Bless sins 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was written in a book with the word "antisemitism" in the title does not necessarily make it relevant to the topic.--Sefringle 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to me as an example of Muslim tolerance very similar to examples given(like massacres) to prove Muslim intolerance. These together can give a comperhensive picture. That's what scholars do. Gerber makes one point at the beginning of her work: The picture of Jewish life under Islam is very complex and it is possible to find incidents within the long history to justify almost any thesis. --Aminz 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a book is titled "History of antisemitism", then obviously it is not about making chicken soup (duh!). Scholars are not haphhazard, nor are thier works irrelevent. If Poliaov blabbed about irrelevent topics in his works, then his works wouldn't be considered "brilliant", "scholarly" and "recommended".[25]Bless sins 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Every word of the book is not relevant though. Some parts are just background, and that may not be completely relevant. From the review you pointed me to, he seems to have written a history of persecution and tolerence for Jews, so some parts are relevant to antisemitism, while other parts are not.--Sefringle 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse every word in the book is not relevent (such as the words that describe who the author is, and to whom did he/she dedicate the book). But in terms of the content, most of the book is relevent. The book is titled "History of anisemitism", thus it is a history of antisemitism (obviously) and neccessarily a history of "persecution and tolerence for Jews". The content above is certainly relvent, because (1) it talks about Muslim rule and (2) it talks about the leader of the Jews and how he was treated. Obviously if he enjoyed quasi-royal powers, then that is a statement on how much antisemitism there was in that society.Bless sins 10:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, considering the actual context of the book, not every word is relevant. How some Jewish leaders were treated is also irrelevant, and stating it is origional research. Does Poliaov specificly say something like "because Jewsih leaders were treated well, than there wasn't antisemitism"? Because if not, it is Origional research to make that conclusion, and it is irrelevant.--Sefringle 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You definition would force Poliakov to put the word "antisemitism" in every sentece of his book - something that is ridiculous!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs)

However, you are making the statement that because some Jews received good treatment, Islam could not be antisemitic. You are interpreting his information to come up with an Original conclusion. Poliakov doesn't specifically say that this proves Muslims were not antisemitic.--Sefringle 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not.Poliakov I just trying to say that Muslims weren't always antisemitic. That there was good treatment of Jews as well as bad. I never said Poliakov said Muslims were never antisemitic.Bless sins 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You said that muslims are not antisemitic. Poliakov didn't say Muslims were never antisemitic. Thus it is origional research or irrelevant.--Sefringle 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Um did you even read my last comment? "I never said Poliakov said Muslims were never antisemitic". Poliakov has used the statement to show how Muslims were sometimes not antisemitic (and sometimes they were).Bless sins 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Origional research--Sefringle 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read Poliakov's book? Come back after you have looked at the pages I have listed.Bless sins 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also it is not OR, because Poliakov has written this in a book dedicated to the history of antisemitism.Bless sins 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is background, so it is origional research. He didn't say this event had any connection to antisemitism. He only said it happened. Thus it is background.--Sefringle 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "background"? If the event had no connection to antisemitism then it wouldn't be in his book. Why don't you understand that a book titled "History of antisemitism" is about the history of antisemitism?Bless sins 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A title is not necessarily a thesis statement. The reviews you pointed me to earlier further support my view here. The book is not just about antisemitism, but also tolerence. I understand what you are saying. It is just incorrect. --Sefringle 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The book is about antisemitism and other aspects that relate to antisemitism (such as tolerance). the important thing here is that I'm not making the connection between tolerance/what-ever-you-wanna-call-it - Poliakov is. Thus, it can't be OR, as it is sourced to a reliable source.Bless sins 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Origional research? I say the book is about the history of persecution and tolerence of Jews, and I base it on the review you showed me. Therefore my statement is not origional research while yours is. Thus Poliakov isn't really making a connection, and what he says about tolerence is relevant to his book, but not to this encyclopedia we are writing. Claims to the contrary at this point so far have been origional research.--Sefringle 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is about the "History of antisemitism". You can be 100% sure about that. Poliakov would have named his book somehting else, if this were not true.Bless sins 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>The first review states "A scholarly but eminently readable tracing of the sources and recurring themes of anti-Semitism."Bless sins 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if a book is about antisemitism, not every single thing it will be about antisemitism. If a person's name and birthdate is given, that doesn't mean that particular birthdate has something to do with antisemitism. This article about antisemitism, not tolerance - the

Islam and Judaism article is the place for that. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Poliakov uses the above statements to justify his view that Muslims were not aalways antisemitic. Please go read the book if you seriously disagree with me.Bless sins 00:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about antisemitism, though. Again, try

Islam and Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is about Islam and antisemitism, as explained earlier. Poliakov is discussing the issue of antisemitism in Islam when he talks about this.Bless sins 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So you claim, but it's just about some isolated incidents in history were Jews were treated almost as equals by Muslims. That's not antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But Polikov certainly thinks it is relevent to antisemitism. But why don't you imagine the following scenario: Jews (the exilarch were Jews) given authority over the Caliphate's subjects (including Muslims). Any society that gives Jews so much power can't be antisemitic, don't you agree?Bless sins 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide these things, and Poliakov doesn't specifically mention antisemitism with these examples, does he? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A positive description should proceed. Lewis provides the following quote in relation to Early Islam:

Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."

Rosenblatt and Esposito and F.E. Peters say similar statments. Rosenblatt for example says that Muhammad's struggle with the neighbor Jewish tribes left no marked traces on his immediate successors (known as Caliphs). The first Caliphs based their treatment upon the Qur'anic verses encouraging tolerance. --Aminz 10:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What relevance is this to either Antisemitism or even Judaism? This article is not called

Islam and antisemitism.--Sefringle

22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, the material you remove from the article are taken from books written specifically on antisemitism (please check the title of the sources). To write about antisemitism is not to "prove" that Muslims are antisemitic but rather to "describe" it. If active persecutions were rare and the sources say that in relation to antisemitism, we should not randomly list certain persecutions in the section but rather we should put it in their context. --Aminz 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This quote is about Christians. Christians are not Jews, and persecution of Christians cannot be considered antisemitic, because Christians are not Jews. So I still don't see the relevance. Even if this article was Islamic views of Jews, which it is not, and I have no intention of supporting any such move, it still would be irrelevant, because it is about Christians, not Jews.--Sefringle 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, the section is to first describe the definition of antisemitism that scholars adopt and the extent of antisemitism according to that definition. --Aminz 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis

Therefore I think Lewis's view that "marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil." should come first. I have seen the passage you quote (antisemitism is " non-theological, unrelated to any specific Islamic doctorine nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history.") in "The Jews of Islam(1984). But I think this should come after Lewis's definition is presented as the nature of antisemitism among Muslims. --Aminz 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion:

"According to

"

Any disagreement? --Aminz 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

None from me.--Sefringle 03:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To everyone: Please take into account the following. Lewis states,

Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil. (emphasis added)

Thus, if we are going to include anything about "cosmic evil", we will have to make it clear that this did not exist in Islam.Bless sins 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz's version is good. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, how do you think we should shape this taking into account the fact that Lewis specifically states that there was no attribution of cosmic evil.Bless sins 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While you might feel this is some sort of important point to make, others do not. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, the only time Lewis uses "cosmic evil" in relation to Islam is when sayin that there is none of it present. He never uses "cosmic evil" in another manner. Thus without including the above sentence that I repeatedly point out, mentioning "cosmic evil" is irrelevent since it is not in relation to Islam.Bless sins 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point discussing these things with you if you then go ahead and do huge whitewashes of the article that you haven't discussed at all? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Like I said, I didn't even touch Lewis' deifiniton on antisemitism (in my last edit). Thus your allegations are completely irrelevent. Please answer my concerns that I posted on 03:10, 7 June 2007.Bless sins 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed; you made a huge number of edits without discussing them - that is the salient issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No haven't addressed my concerns. The only time Lewis uses "cosmic evil" in relation to Islam is when by saying that there is none of it present. Other times he uses the word "cosmic evil" is not in relation to Islam at all. This article is about Islam and antisemitism. BTW, I have discussed most of my edits, yet you don't discuss a single one of your reverts.Bless sins 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You've discussed perhaps 10% of your edits; there's no point in discussing this tiny point if you then proceed to many 10 other whitewashes of much greater magnitude without discussion. If you were to only makes edits that had consensus, then it would be worth discussing these small issues with you. However, since your edits have little relation to these discussions, it's clear they are meaningless for you. Let me know when you're willing to abide by Talk: page consensus, and get consensus for every edit. And don't bother making any demands on me, as you always do when I insist you abide by norms of Wikipedia behavior - this is not a quid pro quo, but a requirement of you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>No, more like I haven't discussed 10% of my edits, but have discussed 90% of them. "However, since your edits have little relation to these discussions, it's clear they are meaningless for you." Yes, because I am not making edits we are currently discussing (as discussion is one of sign of no concensus). Edits for which there was once discussion, and that discussion has ended, imply concensus. Those are the edits I make.

In any case, do you mass reverts have concensus? I haven't seen you ask for concensus in this article before making major edits ina long time. Yet you have made lots of edits nonetheless. Why don't you follow the rules you yourself tell others to follow?Bless sins 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making huge changes to the article; please get consensus for your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making equally "huge" changes. You have never once tried to get concensus. Yet I have discussed most of edits on the talk page (see various sections above).Bless sins 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't made changes, just maintaining the status quo. And you've only discussed 10% of your changes, and none of them were agreed to, since they were whitewashes. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

YES YOU HAVE!!! Please see this. Any reasonable person can see that you have not only made a change, you have made a large change. You are very actively editing this article, and without concensus. Stop denying that.Bless sins 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg:And you've only discussed 10% of your changes. Please see: "Trends section", "Edit 1'", "Edit 2'", "Edit 8'", "Removal of Schweitzer and Perry from the lead on the Qur'an", "Judaism in Islamic theology section", "Where to put". That is far better than you, for you have discussed 0% of your changes.Bless sins 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That was just a revert of your major and undiscussed re-write of the article, as you well know. Maintaining the status quo is not "making changes", but exactly the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, each of your edits makes substantial changes. Removing information would be considred a change. In any case, why are we arguing about this? Who says "change" is bad? Wikipedia wouldn't exist be where it is if articles were never "change[d]"?Bless sins 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes are whitewashes that have no consensus, so you need to work towards that consensus on the Talk: page. I can help you, but only if you decide you're interested in

WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry

Bless sin's version basically includes the "complex story" bit. Plus it adds "were much better off under Islam than Christendom". Here are my thought:

• The complex story bit can be mentioned in the body of the article instead as others (e.g. Gerber) also point that out. So, I suggest we omit it from definition section.
• Saying that "Muslim polemics, persecutions and massacres" were less implies that life under Islam was better. Of course it was not only "polemics, persecutions and massacres" but also less restrictions on professions and living places as Lewis says. But I think we can omit these extra points. --Aminz 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok agreed with our first point.

With respect to the second point, I think we should move the "polemics, persecutions and massacres" down to the Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam section. The reason I put what I put is because Schweitzer and Perry say both of the things in the same sentence and so should we. They start of their discussion by the following,

"Jewish-Muslim relations are a complex story. While there is an antisemitic infrastructure extant in Islam, it is clear that Jews were much better off under Islam than Christendom."

And remember it's best to summarize the authors as much as possible.Bless sins 11:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz's points. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, I understand your point but the authors seem to have a general negative attitude (as they have not mentioned postive things they could mention; and their point about real practice of humuliation ways of exacting jizya seems false to me as *jurists* belonged to the early period and later commentators were not entitled to interfere in judical issues). So, I would say let's keep it as it is but that's only me. --Aminz 08:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an section

The intro of this section seems neutral to me (unless we find more sources that dissent from current presented views). As to the sentence Bless sins wants to add("the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism"), I suggest we replace it by (placed in an appropriate place maybe at the end of the intro of the subsection) "Muslims [traditionally] saw the conflict between Muhammad and the Jews as something of minor importance in Muhammad's career" from page 117 of Lewis (1999). --Aminz 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer we don't say anything more on this in the intro. The origional version is most neutral--Sefringle 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer that we keep all POV opinions out of the intro. Thus we should keep out any opinion that only says "The Quran has a favorable view of Jews". We should also keep out "The Quran has an unfavorable view of Jews". I think that is a very fair to all.Bless sins 11:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We should also retain the following

Of these most of the Quranic references are to the biblical

Meccan period

.

Reason: The first sentence is definetly relevent, since it contrasts Banu Israel with Yahud. This discussion is also bieng conducted by Stillman in the hadith section. It it not fair to keep one, but reject the other.

The second sentence supports Lewis' view that the references in the Quran are mostly a result of Muhammad's conflict with the Jews. Please note that these sentences are sourced to relevent scholarly sources.Bless sins 11:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sefringle here; the intro of the section on the Qur'an is fine as is, and needs no change. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know wikipedia always welcomes the addition of content sourced to reliable sources. Also, please respond to my comment on 11:44, 6 June 2007 in this section.Bless sins 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained before, you're wrong about that. Just because something is sourced to reliable sources, it doesn't mean that it's suitable for inclusion in an article. As for your comment of 11:44, it makes little sense, since it would mean deleting the intro entirely. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, clearly the content is sourced, and is relevent. The only reason I see for not including it is censorship. Also, I never suggested "deleting the intro entirely". I said we shoudl should keep out all opinions that view the Quran either in a strongly negative light or a strongly positive light. This is the best way of keeping things simple. Also, please respond to both my comments on 11:44, 6 June 2007, in this section.Bless sins 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The opinions are about the Qur'an's statements regarding Jews, not about the Qur'an in general; thus your characterization of them as "opinions that view the Quran either in a strongly negative light or a strongly positive light" is incorrect. Furthermore, your suggestion violates

bounds of permissible discourse on Talk: pages, and is thus ignored. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, I have two conjectures about your point:

1. That point in its essense touches the point that in Islamic tradition, Muhammad's contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places (i.e. the concept of eternal Jew).

2. In Mecca, The Qur'an merely used the word Children of Israel to refer to Jews. In Medina the Qur'an started using the word "Yahud". Some scholars (Stillman) think that both words were equally applied to Jews while others hold that the Qur'an used a different word "Yahud" to (in its context) refer to a particular section among the Jews. You would like to make the distinction clear. --Aminz 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if my conjectures are right. --Aminz 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For number 1: sorry, which "point" are you talking about again?

For number 2: That is correct. Yes I would indeed like to make the distinction clear. Therefore, we should atleast know when the distinction arose. And the content that I'm trying to put in says the distinction arose after the

Hegira. It would also be noteworthy that prior to meeting Jews, the Muslims really didn't care too much about them.Bless sins

02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New additions

I would like to add the following from Martin Kramer to the definition section. Kramer's article can be found here [26].

For Martin Kramer, two common answers to the question of the source of today's antisemitism locates it "either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel." The argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essntial to Islam is that since the Qur'an states that some Jews engaged in treachery against Muhammad, it would inspire those Muslims who go back to the original sources of Jewish hatred. According to Kramer, this answer "touches on some truths, yet it misses many others". One is that in Islamic tradition, in striking contrast with the Christian concept of the eternal Jew, the the contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places; or that the Qur'an also records of Muhammad's amicable relations with some Jews. Kramer however states that today's Muslim antisemitism "make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use."

--Aminz 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with adding his definiton from that source, however lets not take anything out of context. Specificly the last sentence. He never says it is a "distorting use" alone. He also says there needs to be an additional influence --Sefringle 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Kramer: "Today's Muslim antisemites make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use. For Muslims to arrive at the idea of an eternal Jew in Islam, for them to portray the Jews as "enemies of God," some additional influence must be at work." --Aminz 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I made a few corrections. I think equal influence needs to go to the next sentence as well.--Sefringle 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the only problem with the above summary is there should be a little more influence on the some of the important parts, namely the following paragraph of what he said needs more influence in the paragraph:

Does that mean that today's Islamic antisemitism has no grounding of Islam? No; there is no doubt whatsoever that the Islamic tradition provides sources on which Islamic antisemitism now feeds. Here is the mentor of Hizbullah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Fadlallah, pointing to the Qur'an as just such a source: "In the vocabulary of the Qur'an," he says, "Islamists have much of what they need to awaken the consciousness of Muslims, relying on the literal text of the Qur'an, because the Qur'an speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their historical conduct and future schemes."

--Sefringle 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Martin Kramer, he seems to be a reliable source. His article is specifically on the topic of Islam and antisemitism. But please note that we shouldn't make the definition section too long.Bless sins 11:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz's insertion, combined with Sefringle's addition. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)