Talk:Islam and anti-Semitism
|
|
The history (older versions) of this talk page was unfortunately mislaid when it was moved and the corresponding move back was done by copy and paste rather than using the "move" button. You can find the history at Talk:Islam and Judaism. Wikipedia apologies for any inconvenience.
| Contents |
Too simplistic
This whole article is very poorly written. Ask yourself this; does it contain sufficient levels of balance, research, and expertise to warrant publication in print? The answer is an emphatic no. Even if it were submitted as an essay or paper for a student class, I suspect it would be marked poorly. Why? Because this is a complex subject served up in a simplistic manner (note: I said simplistic, not simplified), but it's also obvious that the writer of the piece has a definite viewpoint that he or she is determined to pursue.
The choice of quotes in the article are devoid of any wider context and are thus quite meaningless (they also serve to amplify the obvious bias of the writer). Imagine if I were to write an article about Israeli views of Palestinian's and I collected the most inflammatory comments I could find from Israeli's and then published them, thus giving a false impression that they were representative of Israeli's as a whole.
Once again, Wikipedia proves that far from being an authoritative source of information for the internet community, it is in fact a holding place for any misinformed, uninformed and just plain biased views. [A.M.H.]
That thing at the end about "Hug a jew" was probably a reference to this article (http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000234.php) on the MWU site which I linked to.
Read semitic. Then you'll understand that it is stupid to say Islam can be anti-semitic: Arabic people are a semitic people!
- It doesn't matter. Please read anti-Semitism. This is FAQ. --Humus sapiens Talk 03:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
AAAAAAAARG!!! Fix it please!
This article is highly biased against Islam. It doesn't provide any evidence other than references to obscure authors (that might or might have not existed), and biased interpretations of selected verses of the Koran, the Holy Book.
- Really? At the time you wrote this, this article was empty. So just what are you talking about? RK
I would like to remind people that the only serious references that should be used in a serious article should be the ones that are accepted by the majority of muslim scholars (a good starting point is the Al-Azhar University in Cairo). Let me just add this point to illustrate my point. It would not be serious to have a non-Jew commenting on the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a serious encyclopedia, because it is a subject in which Jews are the first concerned, and they can easily provide clear arguments of why such a document should not be taken seriously. At the same time, regarding Islam, I would suggest to let muslim scholars deal with the subject. Thank you.
- My goodness. This is the most terrible and intellectually dishonest rant I have seen this month on Wikipedia. Only Jews can contribute scholarship about Jews? Only Muslims about Muslims? And presumably on Chrisitans about Christianity, and only atheists about atheism? If we were to adopt this line of thinking, Wikipedia would be dead, and most academic journals would literally be forced to stop poublishing. What I find most distressing about your screed is that you literally provided zero examples of what you found to be errorneous, and you didn't offer a single useful suggestion for others to work with. That is trolling, and not appreciated. RK
Response to RK: My general impression is that most people who talk about Islam have no idea what they are talking about. They just put together sparse information they gather about the supposed anti-semitism of hand-picked islamic writings. My point is the following: at least muslim scholars know what they are talking about. My second point is the following: you would never find a non-Jew commenting on jewish writings, because they would definitely be considered anti-semitic. I think I have said enough on this subject. Thank you for your attention.
- This is mistaken. There are plenty of non-Jews who have research on Jewish history, and have done analysis on the Jewish Bible, and even done writings on rabbinic Jewish literature. Further, these writings are not considered anti-Semitic. I own some articles on Jewish issues written by non-Jews myself, and so do some rabbis I know! RK
- After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed, he said that "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures." (XCVIII: The Proof: 6-7)
This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this? Martin
- The problem is that the current article on Islam's concept of the People of the book is misleading. It does not represent traditional Muslim views, nor does it represent modern scholarship. The truth is that the Quran, contrary to what Islamic apologists claim, does not present a consistent picture of Jews and Christians. Some sections promote tolerance, but other sections promote discrimination, or even hatred. The current entry is dishonest because it selectively quotes only those parts which makes Islam look to modern, PC and pluralistic, and refuses to even mention the rest. Current Wikipedia entries on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are much fair and NPOV. RK
Here are some quotes from the Quran that certain apologists appear to be trying to hide from Wikipedians. RK
"O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers (non-Muslims) who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Koran 9:123)
"O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Koran 5:51)
"O ye who believe! Take not for friends Unbelievers (non-Muslims) rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (Koran 4:144)
"Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers (non-Muslims). Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide." (Koran 5:80)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)
Martin writes "This conflicts with what is in people of the Book, and my own understanding. Can anyone resolve this?"
See the link below. It will answer your question. The short answer is this: Early verses in the Quran promote tolerance, later verses promote intolerance and hatred.
- Given this hot-and-cold pattern of dealing with Jews and Christians, who then are the “unbelievers” in the Qur’an? Unbelievers are those who reject the truth of Islam. “And yet the unbelievers [persist] in rejecting [the truth]!“16 The “unbelievers” include atheists, in addition to Jews, Christians, or any non-Muslims who persistently reject Islam: “Do not the unbelievers17 see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”18
- The Qur’an consistently identifies these unbelievers in other places:
“Verily ye [unbelievers],19 and the [false] gods that ye worship besides Allah, are [but] fuel for hell! To it will ye [surely] come!”20
- “If anyone invokes, besides Allah, any other god, he has no authority therefore; and his reckoning will be only with his Lord! And verily the unbelievers shall not prosper!”21
- ”The Jews call Ùzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; [in this] they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth!”22
- “Allah is Christ the son of Mary”23 and “O Jesus son of Mary, Did you say unto people, worship me and my mother before Allah?”
- In sum, the unbelievers are all those who: do not believe in Allah as creator of the heavens and the earth; reject the Qur’an and Islam; call Jesus Christ “Son of Allah”; do not believe in Allah and Mohammed as his messenger; invoke other ‘gods,’ such as Christ or the Holy Spirit; or invoke angels and saints.
- In other words, all non-Muslims are “unbelievers.” The Qur’an clearly states the final consequence of being an unbeliever: “Those who oppose [the command of] Allah and his messenger [Mohammed] will be humbled to dust, as were those before them: for We have already sent down clear signs. And the unbelievers [will have] a humiliating chastisement.”24 and "Surely Allah will not forgive the association of partners with him, but he forgives [sins] less than that to whomever he wishes.”25
- What are Muslims commanded to do regarding these unbelievers? In one reference, Muslims are commanded simply to state their beliefs when encountering non-Muslims: “O you who disbelieve, I do not believe in what you believe, nor do you believe in what I believe. You have your own religion and I have mine.”26 There are also references that insist there should be no compulsion in matters of religion. These texts seem to preach religious tolerance and peace. But things are quite different when Muslims are called to jihad in various circumstances and times in the Qur’an, displaying an adversarial relation between Mohammed and Muslims on the one hand and all non-Muslims on the other. {the rest of the article is at the site below.)
Jihad in Islamic theology (http://www.christianislamicforum.org/jihad_in_islamic_theology.htm)
- Thanks RK - so the Qu'ran is inconsistent on the issue - not a massive surprise: most religious books are. Thanks for clearing it up... Martin
- Just one comment. There is a very important concept in Islam, especially in Islamic law which RK forgot to mention: verses in the Quran can be abrogated by later ones (nash and mansuh). It was a whole field of study to establish an exact chronology and to know which verses are considered to be abrogated. The fuqaha (experts on religious law) dealt with these inconsistencies rather successfully (f.e. in the case of the prohibition of alcohol where there are verses in the Quran which prohibit alcohol and others which simply not recommend it). --Elian
- Thanks much for bringing this up! This should go into the main entry. RK
- I'll try to collect a little bit more informations (my library at home is unfortunately very small...) and add it to the article on Islamic law (where it belongs) --Elian
taken from the article:
After Muhammed's program to convert all Jews and Christians to Islam failed, he said that "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures." (XCVIII: The Proof: 6-7)
- First, this doesn't refer specifically to Jews. Second, it is a relatively common criteria of religions that unbelievers will receive some kind of divine punishment after death. For people who don't believe in this religion it should be irrelevant what destiny this religion prepares for them after death. --Elian
- You are wrong on two counts: This was specifically said after he failed to convert the Jews and the Christians. Secondly, why should we delete facts about a religion if other religions have similar characteristics? Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in God. Should we delete this because "it is a relatively common criteria of religions" ?! In any case, this article is specifically about Islam's relationship with Judaism, not about the relationship of other religions to Judaism. It looks to me like you just are trying to hide a fact which is inconvenient. RK
- As you said, this article is about Islam and anti-semitism (at least the article is titled like this, there is something wrong with the redirects of the talk pages). The claimed destiny of all people, Christians, Jews and polytheists, not believing to Islam does not belong into an article about its specific relationship to Judaism. Could you explain to me why, when religionX says: "all who don't believe in X will go to hell" this would constitute a trait of anti-semitism? --Elian
- I concur with Elian. How is saying _everyone_ else will go to hell discriminatory against _Jews_? - Mustafaa 09:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
taken from the article:
Historic events of Muslim persecution of Jews
Around 700 CE, Jews were forcibly converted to Islam during the Arab conquest of North Africa. Around 970 CE Jews in Barcelona, Spain were massacred by local Muslims. All of their property was confiscated. Around 1000 CE Muslim pogroms in Egypt killed many Jews. Near this same time, during the Islamic Almohade control of Spain, many Jews were killed by Muslims. Many Jews were forced to convert to Islam. Others fled the country. In 1050 CE the Islamic community in Morocco began a series of pogroms against Jews that killed several thousand in the Jewish community.
- this section needs more background information. "Forcibly converted" contradicts other statements in the article and is against the principles of Islam so some details on this would be helpful.
- Who told you that Muslims don't force people to covert to Islam? Many people were murdered when they didn't convert to Islam; this is not a wild claim. Muslim colonialism spread Islam by the sword for many centuries. This is an established historical fact, and I can't imagine on what grounds you deny its veracity. Please present historical sources for your claim, please. RK
This is wrong, especially in regard to the people of the book. They had the choice to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule or to emigrate. I did some research and I found exactly one mention of an attempt of forcible conversion: of an Christian Arab tribe who then emigrated into Byzantine territory. Some reading for al-Andalus and Egypt: [1] (http://www.sephardicstudies.org/islam.html) [2] (http://www.sephardicstudies.org/vanished.html) (BTW a fascinating source of information) --Elian
- Persecution of Jews is not my special field of study, so I can comment only on the events around 1000 in Egypt. I suppose this refers to the (crazy) Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim, son of a christian mother and raised as a christian, who persecuted first Christians (he let destroy some 30 000 churches) and Jews, then he forbid the hadj and the fast in ramadan and declared himself God and let erase the name of Allah in the mosques and replaced it by his name. One of his followers founded the sect of the druze, al-Hakim himself disappeared in the riots against him. Regarding these facts I find the mention of this specific event really displaced in an article about "Islam and anti-semitism" and it doesn't invite to trust the other examples. --Elian
- "Who told you..."? Hmm, how about the Quran, 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion"? Muslim colonialism spread Islam, certainly - but not by killing everyone who didn't convert (as the widespread presence of Christianity across the Fertile Crescent proves), but by government-encouraged proselytizing and material incentives in the form of typically lower taxes. This section does indeed need more references; the Almohad thing I;ve heard elsewhere, but very little is known (and a lot is speculated for political reasons) about North Africa in 700, and I would certainly want to see better references for that. - Mustafaa 08:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
taken from the article:
Many believe that Muhammad's name existed in all other "Holy Books", however as part of their mischief the "Banu Israel" tribe destroyed their existence. However muslims are obligated to respect those who believe in the same God.
- I have never heard someone claim this (and I know "many Muslims"). I'd appreciate a trustworthy and respectable source to back this claim. --Elian
taken from the article:
Al-Tabari, a 10th century Islamic commentator on the Koran, gives an interpretation of verses 5:112-115. He holds that apostles were punished by Allah by turning them into apes and pigs. Many Muslims hold that Allah still will use this form of punishment for Muslims who commit sins; this punishment is specifically linked to the idea that all Jews are sinners. The idea is that by threatening a non-observant Muslim with the punishment once given to Jews, a Muslim will stop erring. (Uri Rubin, "Apes, Pigs, and the Islamic Identity," Israel Oriental Studies XVII (1997), pp. 93-102.)
- The apostles are christian, not Jewish. Does at-Tabari link this specifically to Jews? Otherwise it belongs in an article "Islam and anti-Christianity" but not here.
- I'd prefer Islam and Christianity if such an article is created... Martin
moved from Talk:Islam and alleged anti-Semitism
For a balanced article, the claims of anti-Semitism should be balanced by a rebuttal by those who deny such claims. --Uncle Ed 15:30 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Many Jews consider this to anti-Semitic, in that it creates a historical anachronim that usurps the founding patriarch of Judaism, for the purpose of promoting a different religion.
This sentence would be better if it named a specific individual or group of note who considered this verse to be anti-Semitic. Martin
- 'Of those Jews who know about this Islamic teaching, pretty much every religious Jew I have met has been insulted by this teaching. This is a mainstream reaction among Jews. Consider the same thing when it comes to Christianity: Most Chrisitans are terribly insulted when they learn that Islam teaches that the New Testament was deliberately faked and altered; Chrisitans who know of this teaching are appalled that Muslims teach that Christian leaders deliberately lied about the words of Jesus. While we certainly can look up some references on this subject (why Jews are hurt by the first claim; why Christians are hurt by the second claim) is should be obvious that these statement are considered hurtful and insulting by non-Muslims! RK
I'm not particularly doubting its accuracy - I'd just like to see it changed to something like In 1985, the Universal Council of Rabbis, which represents 85% of Jewish synagogues, condemned this teaching as "grossly anti-Semitic".
On a similar note, the claim that the verse shows that Abraham was a Muslim and not a Jew also needs to be attributed to some prominent Islamic scholar/group/etc. Martin
I'd just like to add that calling Abraham a Jew is almost as anachronistic as calling Adam or Noah a Jew. Abraham's sons included both the supposed ancestor of all Jews and the supposed ancestor of all Arabs; if he was any ethnicity, my guess would be Chaldean... - Mustafaa 09:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This really is ridiculous in the arabic language the term semitic is used to describe the Arab race. How on earth can islam be anti semitic?!?!? The correct term really is Miso-Judaic [3] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Miso-judaism+OR+miso-judaic). But even so the Ihud mentioned in islamic litrerature were a Judiac cult which worshipped Ezra as the son of God and this cult does not exist anymore. The Quran says nothing bad about Eldhyn Hudwe which means "The Hebrews" as refering to the modern Jews.
Hey, if anyone gets the chance to check the paper references in here, they should be checked. I've found enough errors already to seriously undermine confidence in this article. - Mustafaa 09:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_and_Islam
- It seems this section in iteslf is grown into another article. What is the point of having a parallel/self/contradictory article? IMHO, it is full of errors, non-NPOV propaganda, excuses and avoids even the word dhimmi:
Islam is similar to Judaism, in that both see themselves as both spiritual descendants of Abraham and followers of the same prophets. Islamic scholars are quick to point out that Islam encourages toleration and respect for Jews, as well as Christians, as both are considered "People of the Book", meaning they share common scriptures and prophets. Many people have produced hadith concerning Muhammad that showed how he did business with the Jewish tribes of his city and how he ordered Muslims to share food with their Jewish neighbors.
Historically there has not been as much anti-Semitism in Muslim lands as in Christian lands, up until the Twentieth century. While many Jews were persecuted in Europe, they enjoyed relative political and religious freedom in Islamic societies. After helping the Muslims conquer Spain, they helped the Muslims govern the country throughout the Middle Ages (and parts remained under Muslim control until the completion of the Reconquista in 1492); during that time, Jewish citizens had rights nearly equal to those of American citizens today. Jewish historians refer to that time period as "The Golden Age of Judaism", which ended in 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella gave them May, June, and July to leave Spain permanently. The Catholic Monarchs declaired this to be due to their effect on the religious faith of the Marranos and Jews who had converted to Christianity.
Jews, and their Rabbis, gained prominence in the courts of Baghdad, Cairo, and Istanbul, performing the duties of palace physicians, finance officers, and even government ministers known as "viziers.' As a minority, Jews exempt from Islamic law (Sharia), and the governments allowed them a degree of self-rule by appointing Jewish leaders to implement Jewish law for their communities. Important synagogues dot the major cities of the Middle East, and relations between Muslims and Jews have been relatively calm for over a thousand years.
Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased greatly in the twentieth century. This can be traced to various sources; some of it can be traced to long-held prejudices and historical misunderstandings. The main reason for the rise of anti-Semitism in the Middle East in the past fifty years may be due to the poor state of relations between Israel, a Jewish-majority state, and the isolation enforced by the neighboring Arab countries. Criticism of Israeli policy has resulted in a marked rise in distrust of Jews and anti-Semitism at the popular level. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
RK
I believe that your affiliation with Rabbis and whatnot is clouding your perspective on this issue. There is much speculation as to the persecution of Jews in North Africa during the period mentioned (read above complaints), especially considering its contradiction with the concurrent Moorish state in pre-Inquisition Spain. Also, I don't find it prudent to create an article claiming to represent Muslim clerics' view of miso-Judaism citing mutliple quotes from one cleric and one from another. In addition to that, the conflict occuring over occupation in Palestine is downplayed and made to seem like a poor excuse for any hard feelings/rebellion. If you wish for this to be anything more than grey propaganda, then you must cite multiple POVs on this issue, not just your own POV stated as fact.--Mymunkee 07:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- (A) There is no such word as "miso-Semitism". Please be aware is a made-up word used mostly by people who try to deny the existence or extent of anti-Semitism. (B) The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews is very recent, and has nothing to do with the last 1,300 years of relations between Muslims and Jews. (C) I am not citing any of my own points of view, in fact I suspect you haven't the slighest idea what they are. You seem to be irritated that I am allowing Muslims to speak for themselves in their own words, which are POVs that some here would like hidden or removed. Allowing Muslims to speak for themselves is not anti-Muslim "propaganda". RK 14:17, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Islam or muslims?
Is it Islam and anti-semitism or muslims and anti-semitism? The actions of un-islamic rulers or kings should not form a part of an article about Islam and anti-semitism, that is misleading, if the actions of a "clinically insane egyptian ruler" are representative of anti-semitism in islam then the massacre of praying muslims by a jew in Hebron are representative of anti-arab muslim sentiments in judaism.
- You misunderstand. "Islam" and "Muslims" are the same. "Islam" is the name of the religion, "Muslim" is the name of a follower of that religion. Secondly, you can't claim that Muslims who promote anti-Semitisn are not really Muslims (un-Islamic, in your terminology). That is the classic No true Scotsman logical fallacy. RK 14:21, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- You may be missing my point. We do agree on the No True Scottsman fallacy. I don't understand your point here. I agree with you that bad actions by Egypt (just for example) do not reflect badly on all Muslims, and a bad action by an Egyptian Muslim would not reflect badly on Egypt. Similarly, I agree that bad actions by the State of Israel do not reflect badly on all Jews, and a bad action by an Israeli Jew would not reflect badly on Egypt. However, my point was more about the general phenomenon of anti-Semitism within Islam. It seemed to me that the above person was claiming that these anti-Semitic beliefs weren't carried out by true Muslims, because true Muslims aren't anti-Semitic. That kind of circular reasoning leads to the No True Scotsman fallacy! I have seen the same kind of apologetics applied by Christians, saying that the people who carried out the crusades could not possibly have been Christian. RK 11:53, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
RK, I'm afraid you may have missed my point, what I meant was that the actions of a a muslim should not reflect on Islam, for example, the actions of Hitler do not reflect on christianity, the actions of the Irgun or the Stern Gang do not reflect on Judaism etc. Therefore, the actions of an Egyptian ruler, or any arab or muslim ruler should not reflect at all on the religion of Islam, you judge a religion by it's scripture not it's people, this article is about Islam and not muslims, if you want to write about muslims then create an article about anti-semitism and muslims. --Omar 12:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I now get your point. But there is a still a problem, because I don't think that you understand Islam. The teachings and actions that are described within this article are not examples of violations of Islam by rogue Muslims; they are not rare instances of deviations from normative Islamic teachings. Rather, they are examples of what mainstream segments of Islam have taught for 1300 years. Apologetics aside, Islam does not have a good track record in regards to its teachings about Jews (and Christians). Islam does have a much better record towards Jews than does classical Christianity, but that isn't saying much. RK 13:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- The example being cited - Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah - is a very clear example of why the distinction is needed; this madman who banned sleeping at night and eating molokhiyya may have imagined himself to be a Muslim at some point - just as he later imagined, and proclaimed, himself to be a god - but was clearly no true Muslim, and holding his reign as an example of "Islam and anti-Semitism" is absurd. - Mustafaa 03:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Abraham
- "The Quran states that "Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters." (III - The house of Imran 67). This verse asserts that the biblical patriarch Abraham was not a Jew, but that he was a "Muslim" in the word's etymological sense of "one who has surrendered (to God)". Many Jews consider this to be anti-Semitic, in that it creates an alleged historical anachronism that usurps the founding patriarch of Judaism, for the purpose of promoting a different religion."
This is not a historical anachronism at all - unless, of course, you accept the equally unprovable secularist claim that Abraham was probably polytheist, or did not exist. In the Quran, "Muslim" is not used in its present-day sense, as an all-purpose term for Muslims as opposed to other religions (the closest equivalent of that in the Quran is "mu'min", believer); rather, it retains its original meaning of "submitter". If there's one thing Muslims, Christians, and Jews can agree on, it's that Abraham submitted to God's will; that's about the least you can say of anyone willing to sacrifice his son at God's command. - Mustafaa 08:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- While imposing the modern day understanding of "Muslim" on the text of the Qur'an may be incorrect, that's still how it's usually understood by Muslims. In any event, the point is moot; the sentence presents the view of Jews, and you can't NPOV their POV even as you present it. Rather, you present it, then follow it with the counterview, which the article does. I suppose we could go about putting "alleged" before every single claim just about anyone makes, but that would make for mighty tedious reading, vis:
- Many Jews consider this to be anti-Semitic, in that it creates an alleged historical anachronism that usurps the founding patriarch of Judaism, for the purpose of promoting a different religion. Muslims argue that calling him a Jew is itself allegedly anachronistic; if Abraham was an ethnic Jew etc. Jayjg 15:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't really see that. As I read it, "argue that..." removes the need for "allegedly", and so does "consider" in the first half of the former sentence, whereas "in that" implies factuality. It's not a matter of style so much as of syntax. - Mustafaa 00:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Argue that" works, and is better than "alleged". Jayjg 03:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Other Side
There are two articles here on Arab_Anti-Semitism and Islam and anti-Semitism. Both very negative. Are there any article here on Israeli racism against Arabs and Judaism negative views on Gentiles? Why not? That's not uncommon either, and I can easily write articles on that topic. Israel Shahak actually wrote a book on it, didn't he?
- Try Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia, Zionism and racism. Jayjg 16:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And where is Jewish racism against gentiles? OneGuy 18:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What do you imagine that to be? Jayjg 23:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Haven't you seen Shahak book? Or you would label any criticism of Judaism as "anti-semitism" even though you yourself don't seem to mind critical articles on Islam?
- I've seen the Shahak book. What specifically were you referring to? Jayjg 22:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comparison with Christian anti-semitism
Some Islamists claim Kemal Atatürk was a secret Jew. Do Muslim anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Caliphate-destroyers" in the same way that Christian anti-Semites demonize Jews as "Christ killers"? GCarty 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- [4] (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP76804) [5] (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP22801) [6] (http://www.pageonelit.com/interviews/KGMowla.html) [7] (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:kWBQvn9RnoIJ:www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-377.html+%2Bataturk+%2Bjew&hl=en&start=42) [8] (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q0nGwVJReSMJ:www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-usa-ambassadors.html+%2Bataturk+%2Bjew&hl=en&start=4) [9] (http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/anti-semitism/centralasia.cfm) etc. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)