Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Causes

No mentions AT ALL of causes of antisemitism I know it is racist, but the cause of antisemitism (mainly jews being rich or in power) are never cited. At least cite it as "the supposed reasons those evil people had for hating jews" or something. C'mon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.49.101.18 (talk • contribs).

Anon, please do not reuse someone else's signature. You are wrong factually. The hatred did not disappear when Jews are poor and powerless. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it not possible that jews is hated just for being different. And causes for the hate is just our human way of hiding that we are all bullies in the genes.

This is a juvenile argument. We are not talking about school-yard bullies. Hoserjoe

If it does exist causes. Here is some more possible ones: The poor has always hated the rich. So why doesn't poor people hate rich jews? Doesn't judaism say that jews are better then other people (chosen by god). This kind of elitism might well be another reason for distrust and hate against jews? And that the jews killed crist has made many christans angry(so much for turning the other cheek). The modern hate of jews from arabs is of course about the occupation of palestine. Reko 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Christians are not angry that Jews killed Jesus, also a Jew. This doesn't make sense, except for a non-Christian. Neither is it true that poor hate the rich. "Hatred" is an action of an evil people. You're implying that poor people are inherently evil because of their poverty. Not all Arabs hate Jews; for example, Christian Arabs can live peacefully with Jews. The modern hate of Jews by Arabs is about Jews not submitting to Islam in Palestine. It's not about any so-called "occupation". The Arabs don't care if the Jews were there for the last 2000 years; they're only upset that the Jews won't listen to the muslims any more. The Jews have 'tuned out' the muslims, and the muslims are enraged. Hoserjoe

Actually, I think that factors/causes might be good here. I'm not qualified to add any of my own, but according to some of the reading I've done, it seems that the European nobility of the Middle Ages and later put local Jewish people in the unenviable position of lending money at high interest rates on behalf of said nobility. It's just one of countless versions of the elite pitting the middle and lower classes against each other by making it seem as if one group would be wealthier without the other. This also happens in post-civil war Southern US, in that poor whites were pitted against poor and middle-class blacks. - L.G.

Jews are not the original loan sharks. Italians and French were also pretty good at it, too. In fact, there's always been all kinds of loan sharks in Europe, not just Jews. Hoserjoe

Oddly enough, most Jews are unaware of good reasons for antisemitism (Jew hatred). When asked, they can't come up with a good explanation, much like the submitters above. However, if you ask the people who REALLY hate Jews, like Muslims, you will find a couple of good answers. The biggest answer is the Jews don't care to be dhimmis, thereby submitting to Muslim authority. When Jews ignore Muslim authority, they cease to be protected dhimmis, which means that Muslims are then entitled to kill them as 'kufars' (unprotected unbelievers). Refusing to submit enrages each and every Muslim. Muslims are also angered by Christians who refuse to submit. This is possibly one clear explanation for one specific instance of antisemitism (Jew-hatred). The antisemitism (Jew hatred) of the Nazis was linked to the deals that the Nazis made with Muslims and Turks to annihilate insubordinate Jews in exchange for favors from the Muslims (oil rights, for example).

There is no doubt that much Jew-hatred still comes from Muslims, but most Jews don't seem to want to talk about it. Many Christians support and respect Jews, but Jews appear to be suspicious of the friendship of Christians (even though Christianity is derived from Judaism). Hoserjoe

Does antisemitism really concern religion?

I don't think so. If some body hates judaism that because of his christian or muslim point of view. So hatred against judaists is no antisemitism but "christianity" of "islamic". Real antisemitism is hate based on etnic grounds. Limboot 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See religious antisemitism (and please stop making absurd changes to the article to promote your personal view). // Liftarn

The term concerns both types of hate. Why does someone being Christian or Muslim need to make them be anti-Jewish (ie. antisemitic)? Yonatan ^talk 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of there religion (christian of muslim). So that hate against jews is because of the religion of the christian or muslim (and so not "antisemitism because of religion"). I want also make the point that many christians and many muslim hate all Jews because THEY believe that all etnic Jews are judaists (because those christians and muslims are indoctrinated by their believe. So I want to make a point of the fact that antisemitism is not against the religious of the Jews but against all etnic Jews. Antisemitism as the same as "islamophobia" is just ridiculous. Limboot 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This reads like something a muslim troll would write since it's actually muslims who hate insubordinate Jews and Christians. Trying to make it look like Christians and Muslims hate Jews is devious and manipulative. The muslims are the culture of hate, and their hatred is directed at all 'kufar' people. Other faiths and cultures don't create this level of rage and hatred. Muslims are the source of Jew-hatred, Christian-hatred, Hindu-hatred, and Buddhist-hatred, but they try to pretend that everybody else hates Jews.

While Antisemitism encompasses more than religious antisemitism, it undoubtedly includes it, and thus removing that from the lead is tantamount to saying that the category of Human beings does not include Men, because it also includes Women. -- Avi 14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear that different definitions are in use. In the late 19th century there was an outpouring of anti-Jewish ideas; this was given the name "antisemitism", and it was definitely a racial, racist ideology. This is a narrow definition, and some writers prefer to restrict the term "antisemitism" to that particular current because they wish to contrast it with other kinds of belief. In everyday terms, though, antisemitic and anti-Jewish tend to mean the same thing, a broader or looser definition. This kind of definitional problem happens with all sorts of words and is one of the problems that an encyclopedia always has to grapple with. Itsmejudith 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When somebody say something about Israeli gouvernment than supporters of israeli gourvernment calls that "antisemitism". Just to criminalice their opponents. And now when somebody says something about the religion Judaism supporters of judaism or religion (islamophiles) call that also semitism, just to criminalize their opponents. :: I think the first declared atheists were Jews (Jules Verne / Karl Marx). In your point of view critism on atheism should also be "antisemitism".Limboot

Then the proper way to handle that is a brief paragraph on the religious version with a {{main}} tag pointing to Religious antisemitism. To deny that the latter exists, and is a form of antisemitism, is just patently bizarre. -- Avi 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget to mention that the lead discusses those forms rather clearly as it stands with its three bullet points. -- Avi 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

May be I am not right but I miss my question that I as an opponent of judaism am an antisemite according you (as deleter of my changes in the definition of antisemitism)? Limboot 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You'e an antisemite because you're a muslim troll, that's why!

One can be critical of a religion without being prejudiced against it. -- Avi 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...Jules Verne? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. After some googling I found that I am not right. Rests only Karl Marx as founder of atheism so should critism of atheism also be called "religious antisemitism" Limboot 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not in any way, and I can't imagine why you think criticism of an individual Jew's beliefs or philosophy would be considered antisemitism. Anyway, you're right in that the term "antisemitism" was coined to mean specifically racial as opposed to religious hatred of Jews; however, the general usage refers to hatred of Jews for any reason, or no reason. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Founding atheism is not in the list of Karl Marx's achievements. Jpgordon's point is basically correct, but definition of this term is a complex issue and the article should reflect that fact. I believe that the article should go into more detail about the different definitions so that the kind of confusion reflected in this discussion cannot arise. At present the paragraph dividing antisemitism into exactly three categories is over-precise, moreover it lacks a source. Itsmejudith 10:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Different definitions? If supporters of George Bush definite fascism as "opposition to George Bush" has Wikepidia also definite fascism as "opposition to George Bush". So it doesn't matter how some people missuse words like "fascism", "racism" and antisemitism. Hirsi Ali is also called a racist because her opposition to islam (a racist while she is more black then the average muslim but I won't be surprised wikipedia definite racism as "opposition to islam" Limboot 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I as anti-christianity also a "antisemite" ?

I don't believe in a God who has killed billions of people (including childeren) because they didn't obeyed to an allmighty God (e.g. to offer animals and disbolish it later). I don't believe in a story which tells that the entire world is inbreed (3 sons of Noach and their wives and two animals of each animalspecie, fresh water fish and salt water fish that survived all to gether the same water of Noach flood). I don't believe in a God who had a "chosen people". So I am anti-judaism. But .... this part of judaism is als christianity. SO ACCORDING DEFINITION OF WIKIPEDIA OPPONENTS OF CHRISTIANITY ARE ANTISEMETIC !!?><:!@ !!!!!!!!!! Limboot 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're an atheist. -- Avi 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did you read here that I am an atheist. You are an unitheist (Someone who believes that every monotheist believes, or has to believe, in the same God). Limboot 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

However, you are engaged in an edit process that also would seemingly have you branded as a soapboxing, POV-warrior troll, so you may wish to review wiki policies and guidelines as how to properly edit here. Not to mention you are violating WP:TALK as well. -- Avi 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"You'd better not talk that way about Him, honey," she warned him reprovingly in a low and hostile voice. "He might punish you."

"Isn't He punishing me enough?" Yossarian snorted resentfully. "You know, we mustn't let him get away with it. Oh no, we certainly musn't let Him get away scot-free for all the sorrow He's caused us. Someday I'm going to make Him pay. I know when. On the Judgement Day. Yes, that's the day I'll be close enough to reach out and grab that little yokel by His neck and -"

"Stop it! Stop it!"

"What the hell are you getting so upset about?" he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. "I thought you didn't believe in God."

"I don't," she sobbed, burting violently into tears. "But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be."

(from Catch-22) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Limboot is a muslim troll. Don't allow him to narrow the argument to restrict your replies! 06:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

Somebody placed the following notice on the top of this article. I am moving it here.--Sefringle 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam and Antisemitism

I previously tried to make this section neutral [1], [2] using quotes from Bernard Lewis, Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism, etc etc, but of no benefit. Here is a quote from Jewish leaders themselves. Quote regarding the view of the Jewish leaders of Iran: "Historically, say Jewish leaders, anti-Semitism here is rare, a fact they say is often lost on critics outside, especially in Israel, where many Iranian Jews have relatives." [3]. --Aminz 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above reference doesn't exist or has been deleted. Can you locate it, or withdraw the quote? Hoserjoe

Thats one country. We're talking about the entire muslim world here. Even in the Christian world, jews were not constantly being persecuted in every country. It happened in one country, then a different country, then a different country, etc. Even in Germany, before the Nazis came to power, antisemitsm was not that common; seems just as common as it was in Islamic Persia, with occausional persecutions and massacures. A Holocaust surviver once told me he never would have believed the Holocaust could have occured in Germany before it did. But to get to the point, nobody can deny the antisemitism in both the Christian and muslim world, unless they are ignorent of it or in denial. In this case, I think we are best doing what World Book Encyclopedia does with antisemitism; give equal attention to both Christian and islamic antisemitism.--Sefringle 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you in danger of making antisemitism trivial? No one treats different people or people of different race/religion the same as they treat "people like us" but that's not really antisemitism, unless it singles out one group of different people is it? I recently came across serious contemporary anti-semitism (the Jew Watch website). I was shocked and didn't actually think this stuff still existed (and maybe its just a cranky US thing) but probably I would have been much more aware of the real problem if there hadn't been a massive over-use of the term as a get out of jail free card. --BozMo talk 08:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Double standards. That the root of all EVILs.--Aminz 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I must not have made my point clear. My point was that pre-nazi germany and Persia were similar as far as how they treated Jews throughout their history.--Sefringle 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section for many reasons, one of them being it is way too long for an introduction.

Traditionally Jews living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult males) to Muslims. Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims. Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The most degrading one was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic. Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession. The notable examples of massacre of Jews include the killing or forcibly convertion of them by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century. Notable examples of the cases where the choice of residence was taken away from them includes confining Jews to walled quarters (mellahs) in Morocco beginning from the 15th century and especially since the early 19th century. Most conversions were voluntary and happened for various reasons. However, there were some forced conversions in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia. Antisemitism in Muslim countries increased in the 19th century. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are hotly-debated issues in contemporary Middle East politics.

The introduction to this section needs to be shortened greatly, and second, this section should be evaluated further for POV. Parts of it seem to be making light of the situation, especially the part relating to dhimmis and the Jizya.--Sefringle 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, this is a neutral account of the status of Jews under Islam. --Aminz 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

it is also way too long for a lead. Parts seem also to be irrelevant. What does Jews given certian rights have to do with antisemitism? Absolutly nothing.--Sefringle 01:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it is good as a sub-section on the "Status of Jews under Muslim rule". --Aminz 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I think the first sentence needs editing for POV and relevance.--Sefringle 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This section still exists exactly as above in the section Status of Jews under Muslim rule, so possibly it was duplicated? Hoserjoe

Jane Gerber

The article reads: "Islamic law does not differentiate between Jews and Christians in their status as dhimmis. According to Bernard Lewis, the normal practice of Muslim governments until modern times was consistent with this aspect of sharia law. This view is countered by Jane Gerber, who maintains that of all dhimmis, Jews had the lowest status."

Now, Gerber's view is very dissent (the first time I am encountering such thing). I was wondering what the credentials of Jane Gerber is that disputes the common view of scholars such as Bernard Lewis, and Claude Cahen (e.g. in Encyclopedia of Islam, Cahen says:"there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews.") and others? Why is she a reliable source? --Aminz 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a google search. She is a faculty memeber at Columbia University. --Aminz 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is some information: [4] She is a professor of Jewish history and the director of the Institute for Sephardic Studies at City University of New York. Here is some more information [5]--Sefringle 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. As she is presented here(countering Lewis's view), she is not only countering Lewis but many other scholars of the field (everybody I know).--Aminz 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time, she is a scholar and of authority to do so.--Sefringle 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that she is countering Lewis's view as harshly as it is presented here. My guess is that she is at most saying in certain places and times there were something. Like S. D. Goitein who says: "The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic."--Aminz 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the exact quote? That's the only way to know for sure.--Sefringle 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No unfortunately.--Aminz 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Avraham was clearly right to remove those edits, but I don't think they really count as vandalism or that an RFC is needed. We need to discuss them here with the editor responsible. Of course the article needs to reflect in an unbiased way all the different usages of the term. The relationship between "antisemitism" and "anti-Judaism" is complex and differs between writers. The solution is to put on the table all the proposed usages and the relevant authors, then we can decide how much weight should be given to each. Itsmejudith 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between open and honest communication, and rampant POV pushing. Please see Limboot (talk · contribs)'s contributions for an example of the latter. -- Avi 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Avi as Limboot edits are part of OR and he's just edit warring after having failed to better explain his edits here. Nothing is sourced at all. However, if we have to go thru a RfC, the established users i've just mentioned on my edit summary should have to explain their nonsense reverts of well-sourced edits. I haven't restored Jimmy Carter case as it is part of WP:POINT -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, as a guideline, anyone complaining that "well-sourced edits" are being removed should be reverted as a matter of principle - the principle being, one shouldn't use nonsensical arguments to defend an edit. The fact that something is sourced doesn't mean that it must therefore be included in an article; Wikipedia is not a random collection of information or claims. Is the information relevant? Are the sources high quality? Are the claims made presented properly? Do they represent an extreme minority view? Are they being used to support original research? Do they add valuable information regarding the topic? There are many hurdles a statement must overcome before it should be included in an article; if the only claim made for it being included is that it is "well-sourced" and the removal is "censorship", then it obviously is being promoted by someone who has no understanding whatsoever of what it takes to write a proper Wikipedia article. By the way, feel free to review Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_25#Blanking. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the archive Jayjg but it wasn't convincing at all. I am being more convinced by Leifern's comment than anything else. Maybe it is my problem but i don't think i am the only one having problems here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-judaism is no antisemitism !!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing against to critice judaism, like there is nothing against criticing christianity and criticing islam. So "discrimination of jews as a religious group" has to be deleted as antisemitism or at least also written (othen called anti-judaism) but that is also deleted. Like POV-check. Do you know what the "reason" was to murder 6.000.000 Jews. Not there religion. Also atheist and christian Jews were murdered in Auschwich ect. You, and apperently judaists want to CRIMINALIZE CRITICISERS OF JUDAISM ((like criticizers of islam are criminalized as "islamophobians)). You have to shame your selve. Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi. Limboot 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Limboot. Stop commenting on editors you don't agree w/. Comment only on the content not on the contributor. That will not help you make a point. I hope it is cristal clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And can you get to the point. Antijudaism is no antisemitism. Like anti-christianity and anti-islam is no etnic hatred. Can you give a reaction on that in stead of only deleting. Limboot 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Limboot. Can you please remove Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi and continue your discussion? That way people may respond to your comment i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh our holy man FayssalF. It is just a fact that 99,99999 of judaist believers are etnic Jews. Therefore I write "I Presume". And I repeat that Avi, also when he isn't a Jew, has to shame himself deeply by calling the murder of 6 biljon Jews because of their religion. Because this is violating the true. All Jews were murdered, alos ATHEIST AND CRISTIAN Jews. And all other persons who call anti-judaism antisemitism. Limboot 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Limboot, instead of causing disruption, please read any good other resource on the subject, dictionary or encyclopedia. FaissalF was correct to point out that you violated WP policies WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to proof that not only jew-believing persons where killed during the holocaust ????????????? . Oh and if I had writen "stupid Jew Avi" instead of "stupid judaist Avi" should I than not be being banned ? So if you know the difference betweem Jew and jew (judaist) take that than also in practice. Limboot 11:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-religious POV

I object to the wording "has been commonplace in Christian and Muslim lands" as though anti-semitism is an intra-religious affair. There have been plenty of secular lands and movements (Nazism, early Roman Empire, Stalinism etc.) which have been no better. Broadly this looks like an attempt to portray religion as the root of all evil which is POV. --BozMo talk 07:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I think the real issue is something different. In pre-modern times, people were tied to each other by their religion rather than their nationality. Just as today, a country feels it proper to discriminate between its citizens and citizens of neighbor countries in terms of providing welfare, back then a religious based community (when in power) were discriminating against other communities. That was something universally practiced. It was not something specific to Judaism per say. But the real issue is the following: Religious anti-Semitism is specifically singling out Jews because of practicing the religion of Judaism. This definition "Discrimination against Jews has been commonplace in Christian and Muslim lands. Sometimes this discrimination is similar to that suffered by "infidels" in general." is certainly POV. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion for example says the following in relation with Islam: "There was little specific anti-Semitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels."

--Aminz 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it does, but it's a single opinion, and not relevant to the many examples of when they were not. Please stop trying to push your singular POV into summary paragraphs. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion is a notable POV. Further Encyclopedia of Islam confirms it. Please don't push your POV in the intro. --Aminz 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything; you're trying to insert something you came up with today, without consensus. Furthermore, you're trying to insert a contextless claim into a summary paragraph which is intended to contradict the entire article itself. And frankly, neither source is an expert opinion on Antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You well know that it is true. EoI says: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." --Aminz 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you love that quote, don't you? I guess that means the 1066 Granada massacre never happened, no reason for Maimonides to flee Spain or write the Epistle to Yemen, the 1465 massacres of Jews across Morocco never happened, the Jews of Mashad were never forced to convert to Islam in 1839, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These were rare instances and plus were applied to both Christians and Jews. Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession. --Aminz 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, most of those were specifically applied to Jews only, and were just a few instances of many. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand Jayjg how your logic functions when insisting that there have never been periods of tolerance when history speaks of itself. Can you tell me that there was never something called Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula? Who are your experts of Antisemitism that you have been talking about for a while non-stop? Who are not? An article about boxing got to talk about people who have made fortunes while boxing as well as boxers who died on duty. An article about antisemitism or sugar are no different. Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula article mentions the massacres. If i have to follow your logic here i definitely would remove the mentioning of those massacres from that article as they may be intended to contradict the entire article itself (your same strange argument given here). Bringing specific incidents in order to justify your one sided POV article is against wikipedia policies. It is clear that religious antisemitism or call it whatever had tolerant and peaceful periods and everything is well documented. Both periods (i.e. hateful and peaceful) existed. Facts are facts and denying these things are just harmful to this project and would lead to unnecessary DR processes. I am still being patient against this systematic censorship from your part. I hope revise carefully your actions re this matter. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make. The fact that there were specific times and places in which Jews were tolerated does not mean that there weren't other times when they were viciously persecuted. The Iberian peninsula was one small area on the very edge of the Muslim world, and the "Golden age" there lasted for perhaps 300 years of the 1500 years of Muslim history. Aminz is making edits which pretend that that small time and place represent the whole history of the Jewish experience under Muslim hegemony. Antisemitism articles discuss, well, antisemitism. Unsurprisingly, they don't discuss times when Jews were treated well, because that's not the topic of those articles. Religious antisemitism is not about the entire history of Jews living in countries in which the dominant religion was not Jewish; rather, is about religious antisemitism in those countries. As for your rather uncivil claims of "censorship", please don't make them any more; they are false and violate policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you haven't addressed my point and only tried to make my comment look uncivil. Unsurprisingly, they don't discuss times when Jews were treated well, because that's not the topic of those articles has no basis at all in Wikipedia. If there is any, please let me know about it. As i pointed out to the Golden Age article, all articles in Wikipedia should cover all aspects surrounding the issue. If you believe i am wrong, than all i'd ask from you is to explain to me how come this paraghraph appears in that article's lead.

The nature and length of this "Golden Age" has been a subject of debate. Some scholars give the start of the Golden Age as either 711–718 (after the Muslim conquest of Iberia) or 912 (the rule of Abd-ar-Rahman III) and the end of the Golden Age variously as 976 (when the Caliphate began to break apart), 1066 (the date of the Granada massacre, 1090 (when the Almoravides invaded), or the mid-1100s (when the Almohades invaded).

IMHO, the existance of that paraghraph is legit and therefore i see no difference at all between these 2 cases. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, my source for my claim that "Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession" is Bernard Lewis (1999) p.131. Please verify it yourself. Can you cite a reliable source for your claim of "Uh, no, most of those were specifically applied to Jews only, and were just a few instances of many"? I can find cites against it but I am interested to see your sources. --Aminz 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, BTW, I am aware that there were instances of massacre but they were overall rare. The notable of which include the killing or forcibly convertion of them by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century (a dynasty with Messianic claims). Notable examples of the cases where the choice of residence was taken away from them includes confining Jews to walled quarters (mellahs) in Morocco beginning from the 15th century and especially since the early 19th century. I also know that there were some forced conversions in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia. But these were overall rare instances. --Aminz 06:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out, the article is precisely about those occurrences, rare or otherwise. It's not about all the times Jews weren't forced to convert to other religions. In any event, the whole point is probably moot; the controversy was initiated by some bad editing in March, which has been fixed. See below. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know your source for "Uh, no, most of those were specifically applied to Jews only, and were just a few instances of many" --Aminz 06:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to your comment, or are you just bickering at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A good converasation is the one that both parties address the other person's questions. That was a question I asked before and you didn't reply to it. Since the statement goes against Lewis and F.E.Peters, I am interested to know your sources.

Regarding your last comment, "As pointed out, the article is precisely about those occurrences, rare or otherwise", actually no. The purpose of this article is to explain what antisemitism is, how much did it occur, of what type it was, etc etc. Its purpose is not to convince readers that everybody is antisemtic (though if this is true, the article should acknowledge that). It is like expecting "Criticism of Christianity" article to prove that Christianity is the wrong religion. If the article mentions specific massacres, it should mention how frequent these were. It should illuminate their causes etc etc. --Aminz 07:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first comment, this is not a discussion board, and we are not here to have a "good conversation". Regarding your second comment, it is irrelevant to the article content. The article discusses antisemitism; it nowhere attempts to convince readers that "everybody is antisemitic". Perhaps this has been your difficulty all along; you have been fighting content that doesn't actually exist. Good news, then, you can move on to other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you should not refute my arguments with claims you can not source. Your claim that "those were specifically applied to Jews only" is crucial to the discussion. The closest thing you might be able to find is expressed in the following quote which does not contradict my position but yours: "Although the term [antisemitism] is perhaps inapprorpiate in medieval Islamic setting, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic."

Jay, if your sentence "the article is precisely about those occurrences, rare or otherwise" means that we should not mention the frequency of these incidents, I would disagree with it. But I would agree with it if it means that we should provide all the relevant information to the reader. At the end, we should follow the definitions of antisemitism to judge which incidents were antisemitic. This article is not about Persecution of Jews but about Antisemitism. --Aminz 07:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing any sort of change to the current article content? If so, please explain what that is. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I think that clarifying a couple of things may help this discussion:

1. Antisemitism is an ugly thing, and needs to be exposed as such; the same way that any religious persecution is an ugly thing.
2. Antisemitism emanating from other religions happens predominantly in Christian and Muslim countries for a few reasons:

   Statistics

   The majority of Jews have lived in areas which were predominantly Christian or Muslim; the number of Jews living in areas controlled by Hindus, Bhuddists, practcioners of Taoism, Shintoism, or other non-Judeo-Christian religions is compartivelt tiny.

   Religious

   Sadly to say, there are many examples of religiously motivated pogroms and such which result directly from the religions involved. For example, it was the Nostra Aetate in the mid-to-late 60's that definitively stated that the Jews were no more responsible than Christians for Jesus's death; a claim that had been made for many, if not fifteen, centuries. And, as Jay had mentioned, there are many examples of Muslim persecution of Jewery, stemming, If I remember correctly, from Jews' refusal to convert to Islam.

At the time of Jesus' death there were no 'Christians'. There were Jews and Gentiles and and Philistines and Samaritans - but no Christians! Christians didn't appear until many decades later Hoserjoe

Now, as relates this particular discussion of Aminz's edit:

Some sources consider discrimination against all "infidels" by itself is not antisemitism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion for example says that: "There was little specific anti-Semitism[under Islam], and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels."

While it may or may or may not be true that indescriminate persecution of infidel's is not ipso facto antisemitism; that is irrelevant to this article, I am afraid. As I do not think anyone argues that specific persecution of Jews in Islam has existed and continues to exist. The argument is similar to having the following in the lead of article on Hate crime "Some sources consider crimes against all "people" by themselves are not hate crimes" Of course that may be true; most psycopaths are not racially motivated, but are sick people with no regard for human life. That does not mean that hate crimes do not exist. Same here; a discussion about Islam's treatment of infidels, while undoubtedly fascinating and as worthy of an article as Jews treatment of non-Jews and Hindus' treatment of non-Hindus, is irrelevant to THIS article, so I think I am forced to disagree with Aminz. A statement such as that belongs more properly in another article; perhaps Islam and other religions?

However, I will say that the lead sentence can live without the word "commonplace". I would suggest that the mention of infidels be removed completely, for irrelevance, and something along the lines of the following be substituted: Religious antisemitism, also known as anti-Judaism, focuses on the practice of Judaism itself. Discrimination against Jews has existed Christian and Muslim lands. As both Christianity and Islam seek converts, some Jews have converted (or pretended to, see Marranos[4]) to escape at least some religious persecution.

Thoughts? -- Avi 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Religious antisemitism paragraph used to say:

Religious antisemitism, also known as anti-Judaism. As the name implies, it was the practice of Judaism itself that was the defining characteristic of the antisemitic attacks. Under this version of antisemitism, attacks would often stop if Jews stopped practising or changed their public faith, especially by conversion to the "official" or "right" religion, and sometimes, liturgal exclusion of Jewish converts (the case of Christianized Marranos or Iberian Jews in the late 15th and 16th centuries convicted of secretly practising Judaism or Jewish customs).

until it was changed by User:Jonathan Tweet on March 13, 2007. From what I can tell, the edit didn't improve anything, and the previous version should be reinstated. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the original version. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My response to Avi: Thanks Avi for your comments. Here is my response to it:

1. Yes, Antisemitism is certainly an ugly thing.

2. I am afraid I disagree. Under the Muslim rule in pre-modern times, yes, Jews(like Christians) had an inferior status, and yes, they had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims. Yes, they had to pay more tax than Muslims. BUT, persecution in the form of violent and active repression was rare and atypical.(ref: Lewis (1984) p. 8,62). The Dhimmi pact guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. Muslim looked at Jews with contempt, not fear or envy. Contempt for deliberately not following what they believed to be the God's last message. Jews were viewed as physically weak and coward people but never as "cosmic evils". --Aminz 06:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, your points don't address Avi's or mine. Please stop repeating that quote you love from Lewis, especially his extreme minority "cosmic evil" view of antisemitism, and instead pay attention to the points made on the Talk: page. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, looking at Jews with contempt, and treating them accordingly, is antisemitism. I am unclear why you should disagree with point two, as "Contempt for deliberately not following what they believed to be the God's last message" is entirely consonant with "…there are many examples of Muslim persecution of Jewery, stemming, If I remember correctly, from Jews' refusal to convert to Islam." Proabivouac 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To best of my mind, I am specifically addressing Avi's points. He says:"Antisemitism emanating from other religions happens predominantly in Christian and Muslim countries for a few reasons...Sadly to say, there are many examples of religiously motivated pogroms" - If pogroms are the reasons for Muslim antisemitism, there were rare.--Aminz 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be responding to a portion of Avi's comments, but your points aren't relevant to article content, and why your insertion should be included. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Proab, it depends how you define antisemitism and how much you expect from a medieval society. We should be careful not to miss the relative comfort that Jewish people enjoyed. The internal autonomy they had. Again, I think we need to study that society in its context. It is unfortunate, in fact very unfortunate, that Jews didn't have any state. But if they had an state, they would have used the standards of time to rule over others. If I would want to address your point in terms of wikipedia policies, to aviod the issue of WP:OR, we need an scholar to say that "looking at Jews with contempt, and treating them accordingly, is antisemitism."- Even then, it would be the POV of that scholar. --Aminz 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jay: We need to define the boundaries of antisemitism precisely. It should not be defined either narrower nor broader than what it is. User:Grenavitar summerized this long time ago and I like the way he looked at it: "my point is, to be anti-Semitic the motivation has to be that they are Jewish. This is by no means to say that many practicing Muslims didn't discriminate against Jews because of Jewishness (anti-Semitism) or that dhimma isn't a type of discrimination. However, hating a Jew because he is old is not anti-Semitism... it's ageism. Dhimmi was (in most places) the same law as extended to Christians and in some places to Zoroastrians and Hindus. It is a tricky subject and it should be addressed but it needs to be addressed carefully. On the subject of the constitution of Medina, nothing mentioned about it is anti-Semitic. Muhammad favored the Muslims? well, while it may mean he's not a universalist trying to gain more rights for your group is not anti-Semitism. That is tribal dnynamics... I do think it would be much easier to create a "Islam and anti-paganism" article because (I should read up on this) their motivations are in some case specifically because their adversaries are pagan."--Aminz 07:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't "need to define the boundaries of antisemitism precisely", as that is an impossible activity, and in any event far outside the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Instead, we just need to decide what article content is relevant, encyclopedic, and meets Wikipedia policy. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, and none of your points actually address article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The body (excluding intro) covers many different understandings of the term, but the intro fails to give a precise definition of antisemitism. For example, the body of the article acknowledges that "Bernard Lewis defines antisemitism as a special case of prejudice, hatred, or persecution directed against people who are in some way different from the rest." --Aminz 07:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there one, universal "precise definition of antisemitism"? As for Lewis, as much as you like his views on this, as far as I can tell his is the only view that requires "cosmic evil" to be associated with Jews before their persecution can be deemed "antisemitism". Have you found another source that also holds to his extreme minority view? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that other scholars do discuss cosmic evil as an important feature of antisemitism, but I am not aware of the status they assign to it. At the same time, I do not buy that it is "extreme minority view" unless you can cite that. --Aminz 10:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz: Firstly, I would like to point out that there may have been a bit of a misunderstanding of my words; I tried to pick them carefully, but perhaps not carefully enough. Note that I did not say that "Antisemitism from a religious perspective is the predominant behavior in Christian or Muslim countries" I said that "Antisemitism emanating from other religions happens predominantly in Christian and Muslim countries.". Or more clearly "Antisemitism from a religious perspective, when it occurs happens predominantly…" There is a fundemental difference.

This article is meant to discuss the phenomenon of anti-semitism; this is not the article that discusses relationships between Jews and other peoples in general. As such, even if the predominant relationship is not antisemitic, and as you properly bring, the general treatment of Jews under medieval and modern Islam is still a matter of scholarly discussion, I do not think anyone can say that it does not occur. As such, since this article is discussing the times (however common or rare they might be) when it does occur, we have to restrict our universe to discussing antisemitism as it occurs. Which is why I maintain that while it may be true that Islams dealing with infidels may or may not be antisemitic, that is irrelevant to the times when Islam does with Jews antisemitically, which remains the focus of this conversation.

Analogously, as I brought earlier, not all crime is a hate crime; but that does not mean that when hate crimes occur, we should be saying that some crimes are not hate crimes. -- Avi 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi for your comment. I understand your first point. Regarding the hate crime example, i think the situation is more complex. We have certain discriminatory rules (rather than pogroms) generally practiced by Islam against all non-Muslims. Certainly Jews, by the virtue of being non-Muslims, were subject to those rules. But the question is whether that should be called antisemitism or not. I think we are best to follow what various sources have to say in order to avoid original research. The issue is certainly not clear and it may very well be subjective. Let's put our sources together and see how various scholars use this term in relation with Islam. I have seen that some scholars that are hesitant to use the term antisemitism when refering to the pre-modern Islam because certain features of antisemitism are not present there. I suggest we create a section and place our relevant quotes there. We can later summerize them. --Aminz 10:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're having this running problem because of sloppy definitions. So far, I've yet to see a good definition of "antisemitism" which in itself is a really bad term since users must constantly explain that antisemitism is not directed at semites. The whole attempt to explain antisemitism becomes a hokey exercise in covering backsides against accusations of ignorance because the starting term is so useless. The discussion above is fumbling along with confusion of whether "contempt" can be included in the definition, and whether dhimmitude is actually antisemitism or is it just something that happens without malice. For some reason, there is continuing reference to antisemitism in Christian countries, which doesn't make sense since there is no such thing as a Christian country other than perhaps the Vatican which mostly tries to defend Jews.. And Christians, while occasionally saying that Jews are just "Old Testament types", rarely if ever attack Jews. Muslims like to raise the red herring that Christians hate Jews, but I think they do so just to distract the argument. Since Christians are themselves attacked and vilified regularly, and Hindus and Buddhists, too, especially by Muslims, can we ask for some academic focus here? Attacks on Jews, including the Nazi persecutions, European and Russian assaults, etc, always have a Muslim component. "Antisemitism" is a stupid, counter-productive, poorly defined, and self-centred term that should really yield to a more workable "religious hatred" topic. Then the issues could be quickly sorted out without all the time-wasting diversions. It's pointless to try to make something useful from such a weak starting point. 154.20.137.51 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of antisemitism in relation with Islam

S. D. Goitein, uses the term "to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general."

--Aminz 10:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition is probably not the best term to title this section. It is acceptable for the Islam and antisemitism article, but not probably is not best here, since this article is about antisemitism as a whole, and not just Islam and antisemitism.--Sefringle 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, hmmm. How is "Antisemitism in the context of Islam"? --Aminz 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Better, but I'm sure there is an even better title for the section. Just not sure what.--Sefringle 06:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)