Talk:Islamophobia

Older talk is archived at Talk:Islamophobia/archive

Islamism and Islam are not the same

This article is a complete mess and, in it's current state, is nearly worthless. One problem is a lack of appreciation of the difference between Islamism, a political current, and Islam, a religion, and Muslims as a whole. This confusion is, itself, symptomatic of Islamophobic thinking.

John Ball 11:19 12/12/04

Islamophobia is a Form of Racism

The second problem is a lack of understanding of the term 'racism'. Muslims are, indeed, not a race but Islamophobia is a form of prejudice which has 'racialised' all Muslims. Islamophobia is, thus, a mutant form of racism.

John Ball 11:19 12/12/04

Using Wikipedia as a Platform to Spread Hatred

There are certain contributors here who are not interested in exploring the issues but in using this encyclopedia as a platform for spreading their hatred of Islam and Muslims. For what it's worth I am not a Muslim nor an Islamist.

With this view in mind I have reverted the article to a previous entry and removed a lot of the polemics...some of which, I feel, belong here, in the discussion.

I removed the Meir Kahane quote as this is an example of anti-Arab racism not of Islamophobia. It is important to distinguish between the two.

John Ball 11:19 12/12/04

Disagreements about the opening paragraph

Removed from the article "It is a form of racism where Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are, nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group."

No, that is not true. Virtually no one is claiming that all Muslims are part of the same race. This is not a racial issue. RK

I reinserted statement re nature of islamophobia as form of racism as this is accepted by sociologists. This is an issue of racism and the point is made clearly...for the purposes of Islamophobia muslims are treated as a race. The statements of the Runnymede Trust should stand as stated by that body and not be altered as they do not then represent that organisation's opinion. The 8 points were the result of a RT multi-faith commission and should be accepted as NPOV. John Ball

Sorry, John Ball, but no statement by any organization is accepted is NPOV. You must read the article on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And no where in the article were there quote marks. Are you claiming that the eight point list was a quote from that group? If so, then that section was plagiarism, and Wikipedia policy demands that all plagiarism automatically be removed. However, we can include quotes from groups, if the quotes are explicitly references ad such, and clearly demarcated from the rest of the text with quote marks or some other form of formatting. I have no problem with including the point of view of this group. However, other points of view exist and they must be included as well. RK 19:54, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

RK, this article is not solely my work..please do not present it as such. This article seeks to define and explain Islamophobia, it needs work admittedly. Your insertions do not add to the definition or explanation, apart from the reference to neologism, instead they seek to justify this form of bigotry. Example:

*Many people are afraid of Islam because many dominant forms of Islamic thinking today are opposed to enlightenment values, such as equality, tolerance, religious pluralism and democracy. This fear of Islam crosses the line into Islamophobia when this fear is applied to all or most Muslims.

I removed this because it is POV and is, itself, an example of Islamophobia.

Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, has estimated that Islamists (in his word "extremists") now control over 80 percent of the mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic youth groups, and Islamic community centers in the United States.

was removed as the issue is Islamophobia, not Islamism. Perhaps you should discuss Islamism in the USA in the Islamism article.

John Ball 20/07/04 10:00am

Please stop slandering religious Muslims as Islamophobes. There is nothing remotely false or racist here. He merely offers an estimate based on his research. RK 21:54, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

RK, you HAVE to stop quoting that. I've read the Kabbani interview[1] with the State Dept. in question. His use of the word "extremist" is very particular. Secondly, he is a Sufi cultist - his label of "extremist" is like a Communist labeling everyone else "right-wing". Third, his claims are not based on "research" - what about his claim that UBL has 20 nuclear suitcase bombs? Wikipedia should not quote him as authoritative or neutral. His words received strong condemnation from much of the American Muslim community, and he has to date not substantiated any of his charges.See [2] for more on the backlash against his speech. Graft 14:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have now exposed yourself as a Muslim hating bigot. Sufi Islam is not a cult. No experts in cults in American or Europe believe that Sufi Islam is a cult. In fact, Sufi Islam is universally acknowledge by experts on Islam across the US and America as a mainstream form of Islam known for peace, tolerance and religious pluralism. You are writing hateful libel in order to slander Muslims who promote peace. This shows your bias to view violent Muslim as the only real Muslims. RK 15:41, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Uh. No, I didn't say Sufi Islam is a cult, nor would I ever imply that. However, Kabbani is part of the Naqshbandi sect, which is what I was referring to when I called him a cultist. My calling it a cult was not meant as slander, merely descriptive. If you like, I can say "he is a member of a Sufi sect" instead - the point remains that his point of view on what is "extreme" is colored by his viewpoint as a Sufi. Furthermore you have still to answer the charge that what he says about American mosques is totally unsubstantiated nonsense. Please don't avoid the issue by labelling me a "Muslim hating bigot", which is simply absurd. Graft 16:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Graft on this. My reading of Kabbani's views is that he is referring to Wahhabis rather than Islamists but, overall, it is unclear. It's this lack of clarity that leads me to suggest the removal of the quote. John Ball 23/07/04 10:00.

Revert wars

One of the reasons revert wars hurt Wikipedia is that honest changes other people make get accidentally reverted as well. (My addition of a category got lost in the shuffle.) It's best to make individual changes to parts that need improving, not wholesale reverts. And when the changes are controversial, as these clearly are, it's best to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution: stay cool, talk on the talk page, hold a straw poll if that doesn't work, and request mediation if those fail. I'm going to put my category back in. Please, when removing changes you consider harmful, be sure not to throw out benign edits as well. Quadell (talk) 15:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

New straw poll

There are many areas of contention in this article. Rather than name-calling and reverting, I propose a straw poll to determine consensus. It has several parts.

1. Introductory paragraph

John Ball prefers this:

Islamophobia is fear or hatred of Muslims or Islamic culture. Islamophobia is characterized by the belief that Muslims are religious fanatics, have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, and reject as directly opposed to Islam such concepts as equality, tolerance, and democracy. It is a form of racism where Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are, nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that group. The term is a neologism dating from the early 1990’s and derives from Xenophobia.

whilst RK prefers this:

Islamophobia is a neologism that is used to describe a fear or hatred of Muslims or Islamic culture. Islamophobia may be characterized by one or more of the following beliefs:

All or most Muslims are religious fanatics
All or most Muslims have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims
Many people are afraid of Islam because many dominant forms of Islamic thinking today are opposed to enlightenment values, such as equality, tolerance, religious pluralism and democracy. This fear of Islam crosses the line into Islamophobia when this fear is applied to all or most Muslims.

I prefer John Ball's version.

Quadell (talk) 16:49, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
John Ball This is the core definition and should retain it's meaning, although with additional explanation.
Graft

I prefer RK's version. RK

Comments

John Ball's version needs improvement, but it is closer to NPOV IMHO. Quadell (talk) 16:55, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
The final bullet point in RK's introduction is very debatable; if it were struck I might like that version better (sans bullet format). Graft 17:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2. The "recent coinage" paragraph

RK's version includes the following paragraph:

The term itself is of recent coinage, and reflects the influence of such 1990s movements as multi-culturalism and identity politics. It most often appears in discourse on the condition of immigrant Muslims living as minorities in the West. However, its origin dates back to the Crusades. It has remained present in Europe for many centuries.

John Ball's version does not include this paragraph.

This paragraph should be included, with possible modification.

RK
John Ball

This paragraph should be omitted.

Quadell (talk) 16:49, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I would like to see a reference that the term reflects multi-culturalism. Also, it is contradictory to say the term is a neologism and yet dates back to the Crusades.Quadell (talk) 16:55, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

You are confused. Um, this modern word does not date back to the crusades. This is a relatively new use of an English word. Ball is simply incorrect. RK

I think you'll find that I date the term to the early 1990's. The phenomenon is much older.

Again, you are confused. I agree that the word "Islamophobia" is new, while the phenomenon is old. I never said otherwise. You are still attacking a position I do not have. RK 15:41, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

3. The Runnymede Trust

John Ball ends this list with:

Whilst widely accepted, there are some who would dispute this definition.

RK ends this list with:

However, these definitions are not universally agreed upon.

Many historians and social scientists agree that Islam is no monolithic or static. However, such a view of Islam is not racist, merely erroneous.
Many historians and social scientists agree that many forms of Islam have been, and still are violent, and have explicitly threatened the status of surrounding civilizations. However, such a view of Islam would border on racism if it was incorrectly extended to all (or most) Muslims.
Many historians and social scientists agree that Islam in fact has often been used as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
Mere disagreement with someone's position, even if such disagreement is automatic, does not mean that one holds racist beliefs towards members of an entire religious group.

Many historians and social scientists believe that in France, one of the factors contributing to Islamophobia was France's occupation of Algeria, a Muslim nation.

I prefer John Ball's version.

I prefer RK's version.

Neither.

Quadell (talk) 16:49, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Both seem POV to me. I think RK's first sentence is useful, but the rest is an apologetic, siting "many historians" without naming any. They also don't seem to relate to the Runnymede Trust.Quadell (talk) 16:55, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. John Ball has said that we should accept the views of this group as NPOV, yet that is a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy. (In fact, it is up to others to prove their claims!) We don't have any proof that any of these positions automatically constitutes Islamophobia. These are points of views, not measurable facts. However, I agree with both of you that the POV of this group should be included. But we may not force the article to state it as the only view. RK

You misunderstand RK. YOU may disagree with the definition. It is, however, accepted in intellectual/sociological circles. John Ball

No, John, its not. I have been personally involved in interfaith discussions and events for a number of years, and we never have seen this definition. This is the view one group. Do others agree with it? Sure. And others do not agree with it. Many people involved in religious pluralism and efforst to end racism have views that differ from yours. What is the problem in understanding this? Other points of view exist, and you cannot use one group's definition alone as the only one. RK 20:51, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

RK, let's be clear about this. YOU disagree, you have not cited ANY other authority who does disagree. Moreover, your disagreements amount to an apology for Islamophobia. I suggest you read: http://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf for the original report.

and http://www.fairuk.org/ which is a charity that promotes inter faith understanding and is promoted by the British Council, a UK govt. agency. and this academic debate: http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/princeton/index.shtml and the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia: http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php If you have refutations of these organisations positions, then I will gladly take a look at them. John Ball

I hope it may be helpful if I comment in my role as drafting author of the Runnymede report. When we wrote the much-quoted 'definition' of Islamophobia our concern was not in fact to produce a definition. Rather, we wanted to respond to people who attributed to us the view that all criticisms of Islam are Islamophobic. So we asked: how does one tell the difference between irrational or phobic criticisms on the one hand and reasoned criticisms on the other? We suggested eight indicators and adopted Milton Rokeach's concepts of 'open' and 'closed' minds in order to discuss them. We returned to this topic, incidentally, in our 2004 report. There's an extract from our discussion of it at www.insted.co.uk/islam.html. Robin Richardson

4. Ending

John Ball includes this paragraph:

Many people mistakenly believe that most Muslims are Islamist, when in fact the Islamist movement is only a minority position. How big of a minority, though, is a matter of intense controversy. The American scholar Daniel Pipes, for example, has estimated that 10% to 15% of Muslims have Islamist sympathies. [3], a figure most consider to be absurdly inflated, and for which (among other reasons) the Council on American-Islamic Relations has branded him an Islamophobic bigot.

RK omits this, and instead includes:

Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, has estimated that Islamists (in his word "extremists") now control over 80 percent of the mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic youth groups, and Islamic community centers in the United States.

In Israel, there are some organizations working to end anti-Muslim bias among Jews, as well as to end hatred of Jews among Arabs. See the entry on projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs.

John Ball's paragraph should be included.

Quadell (talk) 16:49, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Leo Africanus 18:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RK's paragraphs should be included.

Quadell (talk) 16:49, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
RK

Comments

Both could be NPOVed some more, but neither should be omitted, IMHO.Quadell (talk) 16:55, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

John Ball's text implies that one person, Daniel Pipes, is offering this estimate. That's wrong; Muhammad Hisham Kabbani was the one who made this estimate. See the Islamist article for a number of other estimates on this phenomenon. I want to this article to discuss a number of estimates on this POV; I don't see the problem. RK

It is NOT my text. It is, however, more NPOV than RK's. However, I think there is little, if any, reason to discuss Islamism or Islam or Muslims. To do so would be to blame the victims of bigotry for their persecution. Hence, I favour removing both references. Also, as I suspected, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani is refering to Wahhabism and NOT Islamism: http://www.rickross.com/reference/islamic/islamic45.html John Ball. 21/07/04. 21:13.

Thank you, Quadell, I agree with most of your points. I think RK is correct when he characterises the TERM Islamophobia as a neologism, the PHENOMENON is much older and one of the weaknesses of the article is that it doesn't address the history or development of Islamophobia. This is something I intend to address.

Of course, John. I never said otherwise. I totally agree. RK

As for Islamism, I think it's a recent development and Islamophobia as a phenomenon pre-dates modern Islamism. I'd be in favour of scrapping all reference to it as irrelevent. It would also be more correct for RK to state that many Islamic foundations in the US are, in fact, Wahhabi and receive their funding from Saudi Arabia.

I shall let the dust settle and would be interested to hear RK's views. John Ball 20/07/04 21:41.

Of course Islamism is a modern movement; of course Islamophobia predates Islamism. I never said or implied otherwise. I totally agree with you. However, I note that you still refuse to back down from your misrepresentation of my position. RK 15:41, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Why no mention of these mass murders of Muslims?

There is an article on Persection of Christians, Anti-Semitism and on Homophobia, but what about the killing of Muslims? Worldwide, millions of Muslims have been murdered in the past few decades, by people such as Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, etc? RK 00:39, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

The National Islamic Front in Sudan has killed largely Christians and animists, but also hundreds of thousands of Muslims, especially among the Beja, Fur, Massaleit, Tama, and Nuba peoples. Its militias have also taken Muslim slaves.

The Armed Islamic Group in Algeria has murdered more than 100,000 Muslims in the last decade. In Chechnya, another 100,000 people, one-10th of the population, has been killed and almost half the population is displaced. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies killed thousands of Shia. In Mauritania, tens of thousand of Muslims are held as slaves. Tens of thousands more died in the Kashmir conflict and in the civil wars in Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone. Thousands more have died in Nigeria and Indonesia. The Burmese junta drove out more than a quarter million of its Rohingya Muslims in the early 1990s. In India last year some 2,000 Muslims were slaughtered in Gujarat, some disemboweled or burned alive while police stood by or joined in.

Yet these events are passed over in silence, even within much of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of many of these atrocities sit in the UN condemning events in the West Bank.

World silence over slain Muslims - from Boston.Com

RK, while some of the above may be true (and some is exaggerated) I don't feel it needs to be put into an article on Islamophobia as much of it does not relate to Islamophobia. The exception would be communal violence in India which, I think, should be handled in a seperate article on 'Communal Conflict in India' but should be referenced in this article. John Ball 23/07/04 9:25

OK. RK

There is already an article - unsurprisingly titled Persecution of Muslims. - Mustafaa 10:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Additions from RK

RK, I noticed you have added more material to the article. I was under the impression that we were awaiting the outcome of discussions? I had said I would let the dust settle on this article and was under the impression you were in agreement, obviously not. Allow me to comment on your addition:

The American Islamic Congress offers its own guide on recognizing hatespeech towards adherents of Islam.

Fine, that's all you need to say, just add the link and let readers judge the content for themselves. There is no need for the rest of this, it is superfluous and some is irrelevent to the subject of the article while others could be seen as an attempt by you to, again, apologise for and justify Islamophobia. The rest could be in an article about Hate Speech:

How is Islamophpbioa irrelevant to an article on Islamophobia? The entire point of their web page was to educate non-Muslims about their own unconscious Islamophobic beliefs? And how can Muslims speaking out against hatespeech against Muslims be seen as as justification of hate *towards* Muslims? That doesn't make any sense. What is going on here? RK 13:44, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

What relevance has: "Judgment day will not occur until all the Jews are killed." or "Kill the Jews and the Americans wherever you find them." to an article seeking to define and explain Islamophobia? What on Earth have they to do with the issue at hand?? Absolutely nothing! What IS going on here, INDEED!! John Ball23/07/04. 15:15.

John, you have misread the paragraph. The paragraph, read in full, is about eduating non-Muslims as to what constitutes anti-Muslim bias; it even offers examples. If you think that this paragraph is confusing, we can replace it; thatis Ok by me. We should just make sure not to attribute beliefs to the authors that they do not have. RK

RK, I have not misread the paragraph. Explain why anti-semitic, anti-american or anti-christian statements should be included in an article on Islamophobia? Do an article on hate speech, they're good examples of that. And stop shouting ;-) John Ball

We hesitate to offer examples of hate speech, because we do not want to inadvertently deepen its impact. But sometimes the best way to learn about intolerance is to face it directly. So we reluctantly offer some examples, both directed against Muslims and spoken by Muslims. To understand just how awful these phrases are, just replace "Muslim" or "Arab" with "Jew" or "Christian" - and vice versa.

Religious distinctions: "Judgment day will not occur until all the Jews are killed." "The God of Islam is not the God of the Christian faith. It is a different God, and it is a very evil religion."

Everyday speech: "Don't be too friendly with him, he's a Hindu."

Political problems that need diplomatic solutions are recast as religious confrontations: "Kill the Jews and the Americans wherever you find them." "Death to Arabs."

Fears about unfamiliar groups: "We're so sorry you are moving to New York. There are so many Jews there." "I would never hire a guy with a towel on his head."

Antagonism to different kinds of Muslims: "Shi'ites have tails."

Disagreement expressed through violent language: "Death to America."

Responding to Hate Speech: A Citizen's Guide (http://www.aicongress.org/hate.html)

John Ball 23/07/04 9:40

The West's 'Need' to Marginalise Islam and Muslims

'Islam was a provocation in many ways. It lay uneasily close to Christianity, geographically and culturally. It drew on the Judeo-Hellenic traditions. It borrowed creatively from Christianity - it could boast unrivalled military and political successes. Nor was this all. The Islamic lands sit adjacent to and even on top of the biblical lands. Moreover, the heart of the Islamic domain has always been the region closest to Europe... Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages, and together they dispose and redispose of material that is urgently important to Christianity. From the end of the 7th century to the 16th century, Islam in either its Arab, Ottoman, North African or Spanish form dominated or effectively threatened European Christianity. That Islam outstripped and outshone Rome cannot have been absent from the mind of any European.'

Edward Said: Orientalism. 2003 Edn. Page 74.

Therefore Islam had to be marginalised. The 'western' in western civilisation takes its debut, at least in part, from this ousting of Islam. John Ball

Therefore, in Edward Saids view Islam had to be marginalized. Other historians hold different views. RK

So, RK, provide some historians who hold contrary positions. I have clearly stated that this is an opinion. That is part of the difficulty in dealing with 'social science' issues....they're hard to measure. John Ball.

/* Groups working against anti-Muslim bias */

This section can never possibly be a complete - or even representative - list, and as it stands is almost entirely devoted to showcasing brief statements made by various Jewish groups. If it were expanded to cover other groups - Catholics, Buddhists, Greens, Atheists, Bush, Gore, the Welsh Government, what have you - at anything like that level, it would be an article in itself. I don't see any particular need for such a section, but if it is to be made it should be considerably more selective. - Mustafaa 10:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Mustafaa. John Ball 25/07/04 22:16

Huh? You are deleting this section because too many Jews want to end discrimination against Muslims? That's anti-Semitic. You are clearly saying that this would be Ok if many non-Jews fought anti-Islamic bias, but you seem embarassed by the fact that many Jews do. Is it the fault of the Jews that other Wikipedia contributors have not yet added material on non-Jewish groups? This edit is anti-Semitic, pure and simple. You want to continue the belief that the entire west hates Muslims, and that Jews hate Muslims, and you are hiding the fact that most Jews do not hate all Muslims. For shame. RK 17:20, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

What ridiculous paranoia. Do you claim that the majority of people working to end discrimination against Muslims are Jews? If not, what is the justification for devoting the vast majority of a section which is already of very little intrinsic interest to a list of these organizations? - Mustafaa 00:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What ridiculous nonsense. I never claimed any such thing. Honest people would recognize that many people from many groups are working on this issue, and if they want to work in good faith, they will add such information to this article. Sadly, you and John Ball have added nothing, and just want to remove most of the info on the many Jewish efforts. Adding nothing, and removing the present content, is not how any Wikipedia articles grow. I can find no reason for your actions, which only prevent the article from growing, except a bias against Jewish groups. But do what you wish, for I am giving up on this article. Its clearly a hack job by paranoids. RK 00:55, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, "If it were expanded to cover other groups - Catholics, Buddhists, Greens, Atheists, Bush, Gore, the Welsh Government, what have you - at anything like that level, it would be an article in itself." I might be persuaded that a brief list of groups would add something to the article, but I see absolutely no merit in the idea of having a quote showcased from every random organization that's ever said anything about discrimination against Muslims. You don't produce a decent article by throwing in everything of even the vaguest relevance. - Mustafaa 01:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, RK, it is YOU who has instigated a policy of blanket reverts. I have accommodated your points about ADL and neologisms and retained a link provided by you regarding hate speech. In fact of the 4 muslim and 3 jewish organisations you mention, I have retained one of each where there was a good and RELEVANT reason to do so. We discussed, you agreed to several points and then reverted anyway and then resorted to mindless abuse. You have produced not one piece of evidence to support positions you have made, whereas I have produced several. YOU give up on this article? All you have done is try to disrupt it and vandalise it and then, when losing a debate, accuse your opponent of anti-semitism. Can't you find some chatroom somewhere that won't ask you to back up your ideas with evidence? Please? John Ball 29/07/04 9:20.

Concluding the Discussion

I feel we are close to the conclusion of this discussion.

I intend keeping my version of the first paragraph but with further explanation and references to support.
I intend including a paragraph regarding neologism and multiculturalism.
I intend quoting Said, whilst making it clear that this is one point of view.
I intend adding referenced material regarding the position of Muslim immigrants in the West.
I intend retaining Runnymede Trust definition and references.
A brief reference to 9/11 and media.
An expanded quotes and references section which will support the content and positions in the article.

John Ball 26/07/04 12:37.

You edits will be reverted. No Wikipedia articles are concluded. Your recent actions are hysterica, a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy, and anti-Semitic. RK 17:20, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

RK, I did not say the article was concluded, I felt that the discussion was concluded. You have added nothing in the way of research to this article. I have done a considerable amount and have provided references to relevant sources and where there are viewpoints expressed I have clearly stated such. I have accommodated your points about hate speech, the ADL and neologisms. No-one, other than yourself, has supported your ideas in the straw poll. We discussed Islamism and BOTH agreed it was largely irrelevent, why have you now re-inserted that POV? We discussed Islamophobia in India and agreed to reference it, why have you now deleted that reference? What am I to make of someone who agrees one thing in a discussion and then acts otherwise? Your accusation of anti-semitism on my part is groundless and offensive and I ask, politely, that you withdraw it and apologise. It seems you only want to disrupt and vandalise this article, I can only guess at your motives. John Ball 28/07/04 10:00

Do whatever you want, John, I am giving up on this article. Its not a serious attempt to study the issue, or to describe groups working against discrimination. Its just pseudo-scholarship with an anti-Western axe to grind. You can do what you like with it. Have fun. RK 00:55, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

An anti-western axe to grind? Yes, RK, the European Union, Oxford and Princeton Universities and the UK government are always grinding their anti-western axes. Your inability to stick to what you agreed in discussion has led us to this position and it is YOU who has made no serious attempt to research the issue. John Ball 29/07/04. 9:25

External links

This article has been listed as containing an incorrect external links section. This could not be fixed because the article is protected. It would be appreciated if either the fix was made to the protected article, or if someone would take a moment to do so when it is no longer protected. Thanks, —Kate | Talk 02:42, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

The link is: *[The American Islamic Congress offers its own guide on recognizing hatespeech towards adherents of Islam. Responding to Hate Speech: A Citizen's Guide] I will correct when able. John Ball 10:40 05/08/04.

media

Perhaps the most important factor shaping the present wave of Islamophobia, though, is the extremely large and disproportionate media coverage given to Islamist-inspired terrorism, for example, to the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, while relatively little media coverage is given to equivalent acts of terrorism by other groups or nation-states.

--Isn't this NPOV? I mean, what's so "disproportionate" about the media coverage of islamist attacks on the US? The Oklahoma bombing also received similar coverage. The whole paragraph seems to me that such coverage is unfounded and is actually "bad" in eliciting more islamophobia. Plus, the majority of world's current terrorist incidents are islamist. Wareware 01:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Islamophobia vs. Racism

Islam is probably the most powerful religion in the world (in the sense that a machine gun is more powerful than a crossbow). This is shown by the fact that all attempts to encourage conversions out of Islam have failed. The only formerly-Muslim regions (ie regions where the majority of the population was Muslim) to ever be de-Islamicized were the Iberian Peninsula and Israel proper. Both of these were effected not by converting Muslims, but by expelling or exterminating them and resettling the lands with non-Muslims. This suggests that while military defeat doomed Nazism (which was selling nothing but German military victory), and economic failure doomed Communism, Islam could be destroyed only by genocide. Extreme hatred of Islam can thus be interpreted as a call for genocide in much the same way as extreme racism. (GCarty 09:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Good points. John Ball 11:44, 23 Oct 2004.

LGF Quote

I believe that the LGF should be deleted and/or replaced with another, more reliable quote. I do not dispute that the quote is a prime example of islamophobia, but it is an anonymous user making an anonymous comment to a post of that blog. Is that something an encylopedia would really quote?--Josiah 22:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and deleted it on those grounds the first time RK put it in, but these things seem to keep reappearing. - Mustafaa 22:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright, it's gone now. I'll look for another quote to replace it, I'm sure I can find one from Kahane.--Josiah 22:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Islamism

If anyone feels that the original contents of Anti-Islamism - which I've just redirected to this article - should be merged into this, they're in its edit history... - Mustafaa 17:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Muslim extremists often exacerbate anti-Muslim sentiments" is POV?

"Muslim extremists often exacerbate anti-Muslim sentiments" should be POV? I say this article is the WORST propaganda I have ever seen in a so-called encyclopedia. SOME might want to make critics of Islam seems like racist idiots, but ANY serious encyclopedia would not. Theo van Gogh was suffering from paranoia? Right! The anti-islamic soldiers of southern Sudan are racist? Hell yes! I am going to consult a SERIOUS encyclopedia, that offer NEUTRALITY more than pathetic opinions and propaganda.

The anti-Western, pro-Islamist bigots behind this article won't listen to common-sense. when I added the image showing why people actually harbor anti-Muslim sentiments, they get defensive and start whining. These are the same folks who live in a fantasy world where they want to believe "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" and other obvious lies... They want to pretend that there is nothing wrong with Islam. OK you Muslims and Muslim-lovers. Live in a pretend fantasy world if you want, but that image was a perfectly viable addition to the article since it shows one of the many reasons why many millions of freedom-loving people on this planet hate that religion of war, terrorism, fanatics, repression, and xenophobia! BSveen 18:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous,BSveen, please refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. If you disagree with this article, work on one area, one section at a time, so that a compromise version can be reached.--Josiah 19:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Muslim extremists often exacerbate anti-Muslim sentiments" might even be true. Adding that picture, on the other hand, is rank propaganda of the blackest kind. You might as well add a picture of a Palestinian kid facing down a tank to the anti-Semitism article. - Mustafaa 19:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's only "propaganda" to those who wish to deny Islam's darker side. And Islamophobia is not the same as anti-semitism, because only right-wing crazies are anti-semites (hitler, etc.); whereas anyone with his/her eyes open is anti-Muslim!

Pppplllleeeeease. If you want to make this a muslim hate page, go to another wiki.--Josiah 20:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was unaware that telling the truth was "hate speech". I suppose saying "Jews died during WWII" is also hate speech, as it "demeans Germans"? We should not deny that Muslim extremists exist. Re: your other post about "fixing it if it's biased": I think the Islamists would fight/revert every edit I make, so it's pretty much useless to try. Just a waste of time, you know. -BSveen 21:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

This article in its current form is pro-Mulsim propaganda as the anonymous user stated (apparently with an army of jackbooted Islalmists behind it ready to pounce on anyone trying to tell the truth). I don't dare edit it lest I get into an "edit war" with one or more pro-Islamist fanatics. I don't have time to waste fighting Muslim extremists on Wikipedia. -B Sveen 19:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how you can associate "Israelis killing Palestinians" to "Muslims holding a demonstartion in Germany". If I had posted a photo of the 747 crashing into the WTC, then that might be akin to what you described, but the photo I posted was not unfair at all in that regard. BSveen 19:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It may be biased towards the Pro-Muslim side. Now here's a challenge: Do something about it. I'm pretty much neutral in this issue, as I carry very staunch Pro-Israel POV, but before I moved I had muslim friends and prefer to buy Halal if possible.--Josiah 20:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess we should thank BSveen for posting examples of his Islamophobia on to this discussion. Islamophobia didn't begin on 9/11.

John Ball 11:01 12/12/04.

Runnymeed Criterion of an "Islamophobe"

"Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage. "

So anyone who states the obvious fact that Islam is, in part, a political ideology is "Islamophobic?" Only Islamaphobes believe that ISlam was ever used for political or military advantage? This doesn't make much sense. While the majority of the world's 1 billion Muslims run around chanting for an "pure Islamic state," and go around trying to overthrow local secular governments, the non-Muslims of the world is expected to quietly sit around and pretend that there is nothing political about Islam? Islam is a theocratic religion. Muhammad was a theocrat, he wrote a constitution, and ruled over a small empire. All Muslims believe that they are supposed to immitate Muhammad as closely as possible. Islam is very political, and very few Muslims reject the political doctrine of Islam. It is nonsense to say that anyone who points this out is some sort bigot ("islamaphobe").

Anonymous User: It's probably no use trying to edit this article, as the Islamists will never let your edits stand. I'll be very sruprised if some islamofascist hasn't reverted your edits within 24 hrs or so. By the way, you should get an account so you can easily see when articles you contributed to have been changed (the "watchlist" feature), and so you can communicate with others on wikipedia much more easily. --B Sveen

I used to have an account, and was editing the Jihad page for a while under the alias Pename. But I was ambushed on all sides by the Islamist cabal and their foolish allies; they relentlessly carried out a revert war on the Jihad page until I was finally forced to give up editing alltogether. After I gave up, some other conscientious wikipedia citizens continued trying to undo the Islamist cabal's attempt to destroy my contributions, but the Jihad article was finally protected from editing and the version preferred by the Islamist cabal has now been frozen into wikipedia, effectively written in stone. I thought I would experiment with editing some more obscure Islam-related articles (like this one), but it looks like the Islamist cabal has a far reach on Wikipedia. They're on guard 24/7, making sure that Islam's dirtly little secrets remain unknown to the wikipedia public. You're surprised about them trying to hide that picture of the British muslim with the "islam will dominate the world" poster (so-called extremist, even though all Muslims believe that Islam is destined to politically and military dominate the world), but they even hid the cresent moon universal symbol of Islam (see the [Islam template]); could that have had anything to with accusations of moon worshipping, that were famously spread accross the internet? -- anonymous

Well I couldn't agree with you more about what you call the "Islamist cabal"...what suprises me is that many naive and foolish Westerners are actually siding with the Islamists and supporting their agenda here on Wikipedia. The naivete and foolishness of many in the West (particlularly on the question of Islam) might end up being the cause of our demise.

One interesting side-note on this topic of "Western naivete" is that several years ago, the Dutch government banned a book written by a Pakistani refugee to open-minded Holland. The title of the book was: "De Ondergang van Nederland - land van de naieve dwazen" by a guy who used the non de plume 'Mohammed Rasoel'. ("The Downfall of the Netherlands - land of the naive fools"). The author essentially warned his liberal democratic and extremely generous & benevolent host country (Holland) that they were allowing in an onslaught of an alien thought process (Islam), intolerant of its host culture's beliefs and laws and traditions, and intent on infiltrating Holland to destroy its meaning. (It is availible on www.pimfortuyn.com, but it is only in Dutch). Hopefully some people with sense will come to power in Holland soon, like this Geert Wilders fellow, who proposes a 5-year ban on all Muslim immigration.

I recently edited this article to try to get rid of the pro-Islamist streak running through it (at least the first two paragraphs). I wonder how long my edits will stay up? My bet is 2 hours or less before some Islamist reverts. We'll See.

To the survival of the West! --B Sveen, November 28th 2004.

Well, just as I predicted, the fanatical Islamist bigots and their stooges have reverted every meaningful change I made to this "article" (I was foolish enough not to take my own advice, I tried to edit this pro-Islamist diatribe). You people ("Yosaih" and the other stooges) are so naive. You are nothing but typical brainwashed, self-hating, naive, foolish, Western kids who hate everything about themselves, their religion, their ancestors, their countries, and their civilization and would love nothing more than to aid and abet the enemy while you spit on those still loyal to everything that makes the West great. I think the phrase "useful idiots" fits you folks quite well! and I assure you, your grandchildren will agree with what I just said, as they look back on your generation with contempt for the cowardice and naivete you are displaying.

Please God let the next generation of Westerners have more sense than this self-hating, naive, and oh-so-foolish one!

--Bert, a Westerner who is not an Islamist stooge and never will be.

OK, you've blown my hole. I absolutely am not some stupid, wishy washy, self-hating American idiot. I have had friends MURDERED by Palestinian suicide bombers, and have others who nearly were killed by them! Do you know that after the Lavon Affair, all the Egyptian Karaites were persecuted so badly, that our communities that had been there for over a thousand years had to flee because of the Muslims who treated them as scum of the earth, who literally were a threat to their lives, who froze their bank accounts and destroyed their properties and synagogues? Do you honestly think I am naive? You know nothing about my view. I am absolutely opposed to Islamic Fundamentalists, and am a staunch Zionist. (If you don't believe me, ask User:HistoryBuffEr and User:Alberuni, 2 anti-semetic, anti-israel editors who frequently accuse me of being a "Zionist POV pusher" and other titless). Unlike you, however, I try to leave my emotions at the door. You would do well to do the same. Don't you dare accuse me of being some ignorant idiot. I've lost too many friends because of Islamic extremists for you to dare say that.--Josiah 02:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. ...Wow. Now listen, this is my $0.02. At Wikipedia, we are not allowed endorse nor condemn anything in the bodies of articles. As far as we as editors are concerned, we are not for Islam, and we are not against Islam, and we have no fears. Our opinions do not exist. There is only a pursuit of fact and peaceful neutrality. If someone cannot maintain this, then they probably do not belong on Wikipedia. Josiah is his own person at home, and he is quite correct that our emotions — whatever they may be — should be left at the door, and we should come to Wikipedia each and every time without an agenda, without a nationality, without a religion or lack thereof, without loyalties, and without enemies. We are not students at recess. We are teachers on duty, and with that comes a great responsibility. Bring your textbook knowledge, bring your academic credentials, but do not bring your ego. - Gilgamesh 03:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sicily

Wasn't Sicily also de-Islamicized?

NPOV restored

The POV version starts right away with Islam bashing

...Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion that advocates a law code which is barbaric by modern Western standards, and which rejects the values that Westerners hold dear like freedom of religion, equality, and democracy; they therefore view most Muslims with suspicion.

Where is the proof that all Islamophobes are motivated by these reasons? The introductory paragraph is clearly intended to justify Islamophobia. Imagine the article on anti-semitism beginning with this paragraph, "Anti-Semites believe that Israel is killing children, building illegal settlements, and stealing land." Clearly that introduction would not cover all the anti-semites. That kind of introduction would be intended to bash Israel and justify anti-semitism. The POV version suffers from the same problem here. It is purely intended as Islam bashing and to justify Islamophobia. Reverted to NPOV version OneGuy 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the introductory paragraph which you have removed - is it biased to claim that fear of Sharia law is a motivating factor for many Islamophobes? If you thought that my version was POV, check out this version! GCarty 09:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, your version was also anti-Islamic POV like that one. Both versions began with Islam bashing and a justification for Islamophobia. See what I wrote above about anti-Semitism. What kind of Encyclopedia has an article on anti-Semitism that begins with bashing Jews and reasons to justify anti-Semitism? OneGuy 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oneguy, the NPOV version start with "Many "Islamophobes" believe that Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion that advocates a law code which is barbaric by modern Western standards, and which rejects the values that Westerners hold dear like freedom of religion, equality, and democracy; they therefore view most Muslims with suspicion." Is doesn't says all "islamophobes" believe that... or that "Islam is.....". Also, the article doesn't make any excuses for islamophobia, it explain what believes "islamophobia" (the title is in itself POV in my opinion) in many cases is motivated by. Wikipedia should not be against islamophobia or the opposite.

That's being an apologist for Islamophobes and is not NPOV. Just like anti-Semitism article should not be turned into bashing Jews and justifying anti-Semitism by Nazi POV pushers, this article should not be turned into Islam bashing by Islamophobes. Besides, the introductory paragraph doesn't describe all Islamophobes. It's specifically designed to bash Islam and justify Islamophobia. This kind of POV pushing should not be allowed on wikipedia OneGuy 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, of course anti-Islamic POV pushers are going to complain. Anyone who opposes their POV and tries to promote NPOV is "apologist" to them. Every credible source uses the word "Islamophobia" in a negative way. A quote on the US State Department site: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/spbr/40347.htm

like the OSCE now has special rapporteurs on intolerance, three different types -- anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and then other forms of intolerance. And the UN actually has condemned these things, too.

UNGA Declaration Against Racism has a clause:

The World Conference also recognizes with deep concern the existence of Islamophobia and hostile acts and violence against Arabs which are evidenced in various parts of the world. [4]

The POV pushers would instead like to justify Islamophobia (condemned both by the UN and the US government as despicable like racism and anti-Semetism) and bash Islam in the article instead. If you oppose their POV bigotry, you are an "apologist." But I am going to delete and revert any POV I find, no matter how much they dislike me for that OneGuy 11:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By definition you are an Islamic Apologist and a POV pusher. Your contributions, especially the ones 3 months ago is very clear in that regard. You attempt to whitewash anything that you think reflects badly on Islam, regardless of the truth. You have shifted blame to the victims of Muhammad's raids, you have defended Muhammad having "married" and had sex with a 9 year old by calling the victim a liar. You have labeled the Jews of Medina who were killed by Muhammad's warriors as "traitors". You insist that every sura in the Koran that talks of violence is "taken out of context". If that isn't POV pushing and not the work of an Islamic Apologist then I don't know what is. Sure, you claim on your user page that you are athiest, but it's well known that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion in order to fool the enemy. 168.209.97.34 11:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You just vioated another arbitration ruling by posting personal insults. You will be reported OneGuy 11:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You do that. How ironic that you go and call others POV pushers but when someone points the finger back at you then you complain of personal attacks. 168.209.97.34 11:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you called me a liar above by asserting that I am lying about my religion. That's a personal insult . See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You violated that, besides violating POV parole OneGuy 11:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never called you a liar. Try reading it again or have someone else explain it to you. I simply truthfully said that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion. I didn't say you were telling a lie. You sure are getting desperate in your attemps to silence anyone who does not agree with your apologistic views. 168.209.97.34 11:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:-) Implication was a clear.. anyway, I will let that part go. The POV parole is still there OneGuy 11:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Implication was not there. As FoxNews says, "we report, you decide". And why let this go? If you are going to game the system then game it right! Here is your chance to game the management here and have them block this infidel (and the 5,00+ other ppl who use this proxy server) for a week! I must admit you do a good job gaming the system here. You seem to have the management wrapped around your finger. 168.209.97.34 12:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have any special skills :)) The rational people examine the evidence and make the right decision. End your personal insults and POV trolling , and you can then "game the system" too. Anyway, this is getting pretty off topic. OneGuy 12:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will you end your POV pushing as well? Quid Pro Quo 168.209.97.34 12:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of POV pushing found by the arbitration. I will stop when they think (like in your case) I was pushing POV OneGuy 12:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is because the arbcom members didn't bother looking. And I am issuing an appeal against that ruling since the arbcom members refused to respond to my comments. It will catch up with you, you will see. Nobody gets away with things like that forever. 168.209.97.34 12:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and appeal. Good luck OneGuy 12:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "West"

Where the current article has ...

It has been argued by some, most notably Edward Said, that the denigration of Islamic civilisation associated with Islamophobia is central to the concept of Western Civilisation. The ousting and marginalising of Islam marks the debut of ***‘Western’ Civilisation*** and, thus, explains the depth and longevity of western Islamophobia:

... please note the quote marks around "Western" and consider their importance. The phrase in asterisks may be rephrased, as I see it, as ***"so-called 'Western,' as distinguished from so-called 'Eastern,' Civilization."***

I believe the most important component of the phenomenon of Islamophobia (with apologies to the Runnymede folks, who are clearly doing their best) is precisely this artificial distinction between West and East, with Islam representing the Other, and securely in the far cultural distance, as opposed to, you know, here. Where the normal people are.

Facts to consider:

The last time I checked, Spain was in Europe; in the ninth century, the library at Cordoba contained 500,000 books. Were they Eastern or Western books?

Much of the knowledge that fueled Europe's Scientific Revolution was generated by Islamic scientists working in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, optics, mathematics, etc. Were these Eastern or Western advances?

The present European (and hence global) number system comes from Islam. So does algebra. Are they Eastern or Western numbers? [5]

The National Library of Medicine (a public domain source) writes: "Chaucer ... (names) physicians from the medieval Islamic world: Ibn Sarabiyun or Serapion as he was known to Europe, a Syriac physician of the 9th century; `Razis' the great clinician of the early 10th century; and `Avicen', or Avicenna as other Europeans called him, referring to Ibn Sina whose early 11th-century medical encyclopedia was as important in Europe as it was in the Middle East. Just as early Greek medical teaching served as a common intellectual framework for professional medical practice in the Islamic Near East, so Arabic medical literature of the 9th to 12th centuries, through Latin translations, provided late medieval Europe with ideas and practices from which early modern medicine eventually arose." Is modern medicine an Eastern or Western development? [6]

There are today between six and ten million Muslims in the United States. Are they Easterners or Westerners?

There are between one and three million Muslims in the United Kingdom. Are they Easterners or Westerners?

A huge community of Muslims has been growing steadily in and around Dearborn, Michigan since the early decades of the twentieth century. Are they Easterners or Westerners?

The conservative group Muslims for America (formerly Muslims for Bush) [7] is launching a fundraising drive to aid victims of the recent tsunami. Is this an Eastern or Western initiative?

All of this doesn't mean that Greeks weren't great mathematicians, or that Newton wasn't a great scientist, or that Jonas Salk wasn't a great physician, or that George Bush is promoting tolerance toward Muslims. My point is that that human knowledge, inspiration, and cultural advancement doesn't have any problem cross-pollenating between communities, regardless of the labels the residents of those communities may attach to themselves. That was true in ninth-century Spain, and it's true today.

I believe this whole Islam vs. the West thing is itself an example of stark cultural bias, and is in no way neutral.

This trend toward Islam being identified with the Other ... this trend toward Muslims being identified with the East (the Eastern side of Dearborn, Michigan, maybe?) as opposed to the "civilized" West, is nevertheless intensifying with every passing day.

It is fair to ask: Why is this trend so much more noticeable recently, i.e., within the last ten years? Islamophobia predates 9/11, as the article points out.

Could economic and geopolitical pressures related to the scarcity of oil supplies have made it convenient for certain groups to focus obsessively on that which separates Muslims from non-Muslims?

To what degree is the perpetuation of this supposed "East/West" distinction a maninfestation of Islamophobia? And should this issue be addressed in the article? BrandonYusufToropov 13:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the "otherness" of the West is of course promoted by some Muslim clerics.

Exile 15:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And some Christian preachers. It is, however, inherent neither to Islam nor Christianity. BrandonYusufToropov 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please address POV points in "The 'West'" above before making major edits, Djames

Thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet another request to Djames

Please discuss the issues raised in my note "The 'West'" here on the Talk page

before

editing the text again, okay?

Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 16:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is what Djames wrote above in the (only?) response:

"islamophobia" (the title is in itself POV in my opinion)Djames

I cited both the US State Department and the UN. Both have condemned "Islamophobia" as despicable as racism and anti-Semitism, but Djames thinks that the title is POV! How would people feel if a Nazi comes here and claims that the title of the article "anti-Semitism" is POV? And, if the article on ati-Semitism is on wikipedia, it must give equal space to Nazis and anti-Semities to justify their hatred by bashing Jews? This kind of POV nonsense should of course never be tolerated OneGuy 21:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

revert war

Djames and BrandonYusufToropov, be careful to note the three-revert rule which it appears both of you have violated. Djames, I don't see any of your comments on the Talk page and the version to which you keep reverting makes subjective statements (e.g., "Islamophobia is hostility to the religion of Islam and especially to its inherent political dimensions"). The tone in general sounds as if it is coming from an Islamophobe apologist (e.g. putting Islamophobe in quotes in the intro), and is clearly not NPOV. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 17:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov, do not revert more than three times in 24 hours. Djames would have been dealt with for violating 3rv rule. OneGuy 19:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. BrandonYusufToropov 20:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV Failure

Both versions of this page have serious POV failures..

During the 1990’s many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin colour to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.

This sentence prejudges the racism debate, which is a totally stupid debate about what particular meaning we will give the word "racism" rather than any valid meaningful debate. Changing it to say shift in forms of prejudice from would make it NPOV simply. There is no need to put the authors of the paper inline.

The term is typically used to criticize specific people as bigoted toward Muslims. (my bold)

are there any statistics on that, or is that just an assertion?

Islamophobia has been increased in western societies, primarily due to the erroneous' linking of all members of the Muslim faith with the small numbers of violent

primarily? erroneous? No POV here.

Islamophobia has been provoked....

arrggghhh... no predjudging the issue going on here...

Mozzerati 21:51, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Excellent comments. Even the use of "ironically" in "Ironically, anti-Muslim bias has occasionally been expressed in violent attacks on Sikhs" is a value judgement word that should be eliminated. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 22:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here is one of the problem with the previous version. I cited two sources both compare Islamophobia with racism and anti-Semitism. The US State Department:

like the OSCE now has special rapporteurs on intolerance, three different types -- anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and then other forms of intolerance. And the UN actually has condemned these things, too.[8]

And the UN

The World Conference also recognizes with deep concern the existence of Islamophobia and hostile acts and violence against Arabs which are evidenced in various parts of the world. [9]

The previous version was written by an Islamophobe apologist who (despite the fact that the word "Islamophobe" is used in a negative way by the UN) instead implied that "Islamophobe" just value "democracy and freedom" which is not compatible (in his POV opinion) with Islam. That's an opposite definition of how the UN used the word. In his edit summary, POV pusher Djames gave this reason for revert: Islamophobes "MUST get their case presented." That's like a Nazi (note the US State Department used the word "Islamophobia" in the same sentence as anti-Semitism) saying that Nazis "MUST get their case presented" in anti-Semitism article OneGuy 22:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've implemented NPOV changes to the current version per Mozzerati's suggestions. Whoever added inline author references may want to footnote these instead. There is room in the Criticism section to address objections to the concept of Islamophia; however, it has to be NPOV, i.e., reporting accurately sourced views of what others think, not a personal editorial. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 23:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Examples of Islamophobia are "out of context"

Why is it that when one quotes from the Koran, even if they give the full reference to the source, that show Islam is a less than peaceful nature then it's called "out of context". Yet on this page there is a huge list of examples on quotes that give examples of Islamophobia. Why the double standard? If the quotes that give examples of Islamophobia is allowed, why can't we give a few violent quotes from the Koran as examples as to WHY some people are Islamophobic? 168.209.97.34 13:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really [serious]? The quotes that you posted were out of context. The context in that case changed the meaning. This is not the case here. These quotes faithfully convey the intended meaning. Adding the next or previous sentence (unlike what you did with Qur'anic verses) do not change the meaning. For anyone interested to see how this user posted out of context verses, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 (the evidence page), and also note to admins who are reading this, this user is on POV parole for one year by arbcom ruling OneGuy 13:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have just made a personal attack. This is violation of the arbitration in which you were asked not to respond with personal attacks. You will be reported. 168.209.97.34 13:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good luck :)) OneGuy 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

above comment edited by sannse (talk) 13:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Sannse scroll above and see some of his insults regarding me (where he called me a liar) and insulting Muslims and Islam in general OneGuy 13:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, there was no personal attack by me to you. If there was you would have done your best to get the sysops to block me for it. And, according to Islamic holy scripture, they are allowed to lie to further Allah's cause. I can get the exact quotes for you, but I'm sure you will simply say they are taken out of context!!!