Talk:Persecution of Muslims

Wshun, I am sorry to have been so hasty to post this on VfD. I can see it is the basis for a substantial article. If it is still listed there, I will remove it. Good luck! Viajero 11:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply add this information to Muslim under a "Persecution of Muslims" section. There's nothing unique about persecution of Muslims vs persecution of any other group. Topical, perhaps, but not unique.
Tualha 23:20, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

If you agree to move Persecution of Christians to Christianity, then I support your idea. Wshhun

I edited the discussion of how the riots started to present a more neutral point of view. What is known that 58 Hindu pilgrims died due to a firebombing of a train by an alleged Muslim mob. Whether the mob did it or not, subsequent riots killed at least 1000 people, mostly Muslims. I wanted to introduce a more neutral point of view. user: 67.106.157.231

59 Hindu Piligrims including 14 children. Corrected the numbers.

'Hindu persecution of Muslims'

That section is marked NPOV. Largely Hindu India is represented by a Muslim president. Where is the persecution in that? Riots in a localized place does not characterize an avowed policy of persecution.

Gujarat was not a genocide

Gujarat riots were riots they were not genocide. 2000 Muslims dies but India has 150 million of them, it is hardly a genocide. Moreover these were riots between two communitites not a state planned (or executed) "genocide".

Wow! Thats like saying Stalin killed a 100 000 Russians at once but thats okay because there were 120 million of them. A genocide is a mass murder, and many will consider this to be exactly that because there were people employed by the state (i.e. police and army officers) involved in the killings. --Anonymous editor 17:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Skeleton outline

Omegatron said "this article has a very "skeleton outline" feel. the empty headings should be deleted if they do not get content in a few days." I disagree with the latter, but definitely agree that this needs more content... - Mustafaa 23:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire article is screaming with POV. "Muslim persecution in Spain" without even mentioning the Muslim invasion of Spain or the long campaign of warfare the Muslims used to conquer and convert the pennisula. An armed response to an invasion is not persecution! It cannot be logically equalled to say, the Holocaust were a peaceful ethnic minority were made scapegoats and killed or where Christians were fed to the Lions. "Muslim persecution during the Crusades" - The Crusades were an armed response to the Muslim persecution of Christian pilgrims. While the Crusaders slaughtering the Muslims in Jerusalem was wrong (in my POV), an action like that is more like total warfare, not persecution. That's like saying the massive bombing of Dresden, Germany in WWII, was persecution of Germans.Barneygumble 15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you believe that a program of forced conversions and expulsions of an already conquered minority is an "armed response to an invasion" that took place 800 years earlier? I suppose if the modern Welsh started kidnapping English children and raising them to speak Welsh, or expelling Englishmen and confiscating all their property, you would call that their "armed response" to the English invasion of Wales 800 years ago. - Mustafaa 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Scottish were fighting with the English from long before William Wallace up until the Young Pretender was finally defeated. England invaded several times. Even today the Scots still dislike the English. Today people have a democratic political process. The Scottish Independence Party seeks Scottish independence. If they ever got enough votes, they could vote themselves out of Great Britian. Regardless... you do have a point in way. However, although events surrounding and leading up to the Spanish Inquisition were obviously persecution, a sentence or two of context leading up to the time period would create for a better NPOV. For example, in 1946, the Czechs expelled all Germans from Czechoslovakia. That was "persecution of Germans" although discussing it, without mentioning the Munich Conference, WWII, and the Sudenland would be improper. Barneygumble 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Events of less than a decade before, as in your Czech example, can certainly be argued to constitute necessary context; if you can think of any missing information about the events leading up to Granada's conquest, say, that could be relevant. Events of 800 years earlier, however, have nothing to do with it. Even the Granadan kingdom itself wasn't founded until many centuries later, when Christians already had the upper hand in the peninsula. - Mustafaa 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is a longer time doesn't change the necessity to include the historical context. How is the Czechs expelling Germans (because of German invasion) any different the Spanish expelling the Moors (because of their invasion)? Just because it was several hundred years didn't change Spanish resentment. It's a strong POV not to include any background. Any comments on my Crusade arguement? Barneygumble 15:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)