Talk:Islamophobia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:25, 28 July 2005 editAxon (talk \| contribs)2,062 editsm →Page protection 2 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:38, 28 July 2005 edit undoGermen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,144 edits →Page protection 2 Next edit →
Line 582:		Line 582:
	: The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --] 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)		: The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --] 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
	I would agree the dispute is still raging. Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response. I would recommend keeping the page protected in the meantime. ] (]\|]) 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)		I would agree the dispute is still raging. Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response. I would recommend keeping the page protected in the meantime. ] (]\|]) 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
			:As you can see above, Noel, ] consistently obstructs any sensible effort to come to a more objective and neutral version of this article by continuously referring to the arbitrary ] definition of islamophobia as the sole authorative definition and trying to get people banned who disagree with his narrow POV. --] (] \| ] ]) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:38, 28 July 2005

Older talk is archived at Talk:Islamophobia/archive, Talk:Islamophobia/archive2, Talk:Islamophobia/archive3, Talk:Islamophobia/archive4 and Talk:Islamophobia/archive5

Evidence for Crusades Link

Okay, for the third (or is it fourth) time, I again repeat the problems with the references:

Google Test: Seems to fail, since it gives hundreds of thousands of hits for things totally unrelated to the crusades.
http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/history/crusades2.html: Personal Propaganda Homepage
New Statesman Article: Talks about 20th century textbook authors' attitude towards Islamic civilization.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,683186,00.html: More credible, but does not claim any causal relation between Islamophobia and the crusades. Author a theologian and not a historian.

These are all the references I could find. deeptrivia 03:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes here: I'm attempting to explore links between Islamophobia and the Crusades, of which there are clearly some as we can see from the above sources.Perhaps the link doesn't belong in the history section, but it certainly belongs in the article.

I dispute the google test seemed to fail despite your alternative searches: clearly, there is only one sense in which one might use the terms "Islamophobia" and "The Crusades" together. The Google Test demonstrates that the link is a significant view and should be represented in this article. Axon 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You also missed this reference:

The New Crusades Constructing the Muslim Enemy

Which, as we can see from the abstract, clearly makes a link between the Crusades and the current climate of Islamophobia. Axon 09:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Runnymede Trust Definition

Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

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

Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

In order to validify the Runnymede Trust Definition, we have to check whether the eight statements above are the result of prejudice, i.e. whether they are true or false.

My bit: 1. Muslims are not a monolithic block, but the Islamic source materials, Qur'an and sahih hadith, are generally considered as unchanged and authoritative. Most Muslims feel more solidarity with other Muslims than with infidels, even if the infidels are not at fault. This is manifest by the outrage about the fate of the Palestinians (2000 dead) while mass murder by fellow Muslim in Darfur (200 000+ dead) is ignored. /

2. Islamic theology has a word, bid'a, for non-islamic cultural innovations from other cultures. Mainstream islamic theology rejects bid'a. Nevertheless, there is cultural exchange between islam and other civilizations, of course. Not because of islamic theology, but despite of it. /

3. From a Western point of view, islamic theology, islamic jurisprudence as well as islamic civilization do not match to Western standards at those points, e.g. hand-cutting, stoning, women get half of the share of men, killing of apostates, rejection of rational scepsis, killing gays. Refer: al-Ghazali.Counterexamples are welcome. /

4. Most Muslims think this way, as is manifest from opinion polls. They get their ideas from islamic theology. Both Qur'an and Sunnah differentiate between the Muslims and the infidels and consider the non-Muslims as enemies. /

5. The dominant fundamentalist POV does so. Moderate muslims don't want or cannot stop them. /

6. OK, valid, but it can be a manifestation of chauvinism as well. /

7. Unclear sentence. How can "hostility" justify discrimination? Besides: this is not a prejudice, this is discriminatory behaviour resulting from "hostility", which means, I guess, negative prejudice. So it doesn't belong in the definition. /

8. Hostility towards criminals, racists and neonazis is "seen as normal" too, because they harm their fellow human beings. It should be studied whether there is a valid reason for this hostility. Therefore I press for an analysis of supposed prejudices. --Germen 1 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

No offence, but your dissent with the definition is irrelavant to this article and the discussion on this page. See WP:NOR. Axon 4 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

No offence, but you use this "Runnymede Definition" to support your definition of 'islamophobia'. This makes it relevant. Please read your preceding comments. --Germen 5 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)

Start Quote from AxonI note you still maintain the defintion of islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Trust et al is "disputed" but have yet to provide any alternative defintions with citations. This would be most helpful, otherwise we have no reason to believe the defintion is contested.End quote from Axon

I don't really understand your point here: both my remarks you quote seem to back each other up. I asked you to demonstrate evidence that the defintion is disputed and you have yet to do so. Your own disagreement is not adequate evidence of dispute and, hence, irrelevant. Again, please refer to WP:NOR and other Misplaced Pages policies. Axon 5 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

I have demonstrated the Runnymede Trust Definition is inconsistent both with the dictionary definition and with itself. Hence it is disputed. You sound like a Middle Ager who refers to Aristotle instead of opening its mouth and counting, in order to find out how much teeth a horse has.--Germen 5 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)

Have you? You have described why you feel the Runnymede Trust Definition is inconsistent. This is not the same thing. Once again, I advise you to familiarise yourself with the workings of Misplaced Pages and the no original research rule and why we have it. From one perspective, we are like the Middle Ager in that counting the horses teeth would be original research, but this is the nature of an encyclopedia and not a research journal. Axon 5 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)

Logical deduction and synthesis is considered as legitimate for writers, see your link. Besides, I would like to point to more critic on the islamophobia concept as defined by the Runnymede Trust:

"Logical deduction and synthesis is considered as legitimate for writers" Not on Misplaced Pages it isn't and nowhere on the NOR page does it mention that original deducation and synthesis, especially as above, are permitted. Axon 5 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/lnc/papers/Richardson_04_09_Islamophobia.doc

Stay Strong

Stay strong my brothers, Yuber and Axon and Mustafaa. We will defeat the kafir and we will have the kalifah once more. It is only a matter of time. Fight them here and everywhere.

Constructive comments welcommed, snarky silliness will be ignored. If you want to see a more neutral version please get involved constructively. Axon 09:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Axon. Sounds like a user who knows one or two Islamic terms making a silly comment, nothing more. --Anonymous editor 20:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm deeply offended. If you're going to attack their objectivity by making snide remarks about their religion ... what am I, chopped liver? It's kind of like failing to make Nixon's enemies' list. :) BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to look at objective arguments than to take resort to name-calling. For the record: Yuber, Mustafaa, BrandonYusufToporov and "Anonymous User" are all Muslims. I am not a Muslim and I do admit I have a negative POV on islam: according to me the world would be a better place without islam.

I have valid, objective reasons for this view, i.e. Quran, Sunnah, fatwa's and Muslim records at several theaters. Therefore I believe a NPOV approach will be sufficient to defend my view. --Germen 1 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Um... theaters? Can you elaborate on this? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

I refer to Muslim political and militant activism in several countries in Africa (Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan etc.), Europe (Netherlands, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya/Dagestan, France) and Asia (Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordania, Turkey, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India (Kashmir etc.), Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines). Everywhere in the world Muslims harass, torture, rob, rape and intimidate non-Muslims or secular Muslims. Only areas without Muslims are free from this problem. --Germen 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

An interesting perspective. I have to confess, though, I'm still muddled. By "theaters," do you mean "cinematic and/or dramatic exhibition venues" or "theaters of war"? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

The second meaning :) --81.58.29.90 21:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

So, you admit the anonymous personal attack you made above, was you? How do you think making this kind of comment helps to resolving the issues here? It is frustrating getting blocked, but you only have yourself to blame for breaking the 3RR and taking petty revenge as above is a show of bad faith and a breach of Misplaced Pages policy. If you are responsible for the above remarks, I ask, as a gesture of good will, you apologise and confirm that you will not do this again.

What is more, the religous convictions of editors is also irrelevant to the discussion here. It should be discounted during discussion here. Axon 1 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

I did not make the first comment in this section. --Germen 1 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

And the religious convictions of authors influence their opinions about religion deeply, so their opinion about them as well. They are shareholders in the stock of their religion. Hope this will sink in your American brain. --Germen 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

As do your own right-wing prejudices, but that is besides the point as regardless of whether you are muslim, a member of the BNP or all view poits in between, on Misplaced Pages your view carries equal currency. However, calling out the muslims as being somehow untrustworthy is racist, IMHO, and I ask you to refrain from doing so. What is more, your own personal attacks against me and assumptions about me do you no favors: FYI I'm a UK citizen. Axon 5 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

1. Being critical about islam is not right-wing.

2. It is racist to attribute human qualities because of their race. Muslims are not a race, they are adherents of islam. So attributing qualities to muslims is not racist. 3. Muslims MUST defend their faith, it is considered a part of jihad, i.e. jihad with the mouth (see Bukhari). They cannot be neutral in this issue, otherwise they commit a sin and risk hell-fire. These are the facts, you can verify them in all complete sahih hadith collections. I do not say muslims are untrustworthy, I say most Muslims cannot be impartial regarding their faith. 4. So you are Briton. Too bad, even you haven't learned your lesson about islam now. Fortunately many of your countrymen are wiser than you.

--21:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If anti-semetism can be generally considered racist, I see no reason to not consider islamophobia racist either. Regardless, I find you ignoring my original point: your tactic of calling out the muslims is, if we cannot agree racist, prejudiced and bigotted and I ask you desist, as much for the sake of your own argument, as for the general civility of discussion on this page. We all have our own POV here, but the point is to get past these.

Racism means the belief in both human races and believing race is a major cause of human action. Antisemitism (when definied as antijudaism) is racist when it is directed to the Jews as an ethnic group, Muslims are not a race but adherents of the religion of islam, therefore anti-muslim bias is not racist. --Germen 14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The same argument you use for anti-semetism above can be used for Islamophobia. Axon 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we have learnt our lesson about Islam: in Britian we live with muslims closely, I have several muslims friends and generally the communities get on very well. Except for one or two unpleasant examples, there has been much support of the muslim community from all British quarters despite recent events. It makes me proud to be British, for once, and I thank you for noting it even if your point is in the poorest taste. Axon 13:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately most British do not share your point of view and they are slowly awakening as we in Holland already have. Considering your utopic view on the peacefulness of our Muslim friends, I would like te refer to this report: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=811

Yes, fortunately. I guess you think the death of an innocent 48 year old Pakistani man the other day to be very fortunate. Actually, if you read further down the page you'll see Germen chuckling at the story. You are becoming just as bad as the terrorists themselves. How long before we see you killing innocents in revenge?Heraclius 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course I deplore the killing of innocents. I do not advocate this kind of illegal actions. But it is a fact that a majority of Muslims support suicide bombings with conditions, support terrorist activity and wish islamic influence increases. See the report up here. Obviously, there is a huge problem within the Muslim community and we have the right to implore them to eliminate radical elements and thoughts in order to protect our own safety. Suicide bombers base their actions on the writings of Sayyid Qutb and other thinkers like al-Ghazali, which base themselves in turn on Qur'an and sahih Hadith. A critical attitude of the non-Muslim population towards this violent elements within islam is essential in order to promote the much-needed reform within the islamic community. This is not racist, this is common sense. --Germen 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Strawman much? I really don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about or why you would attribute such claims to myself. Please be warned: your incivil remarks may also constitute a personal attack.

Fortunately most British do not share your point of view Don't they? One study from an obscure source does not demonstrate this adequately to me. Axon 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting findings: most Muslims consider themselves Muslim rather than citizen of their country, most Muslims want Islam to play a bigger role in the world and in their country, support of suicide bombings is massive, .... (anyhow, read yourself). OK, anyhow, good luck with self-destructing your country. --Germen 14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My country seems to be doing pretty well at the moment and, from where I'm sitting, I can't see much sign of destruction, self-inflicted or otherwise, thanks. Axon 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's see. The proof of the pudding is the eating. --Germen 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Solving the unsolvable

I voted to keep this page on its VfD, and it has since errupted into an edit war. I think I echo others when I say that articles such as this are doomed to POV, not becuase they are inherently so, but because of the number of people with axes to grind, subconscious or otherwise, who are determined to bend the article over and fuck any usefulness in an attempt to perusade us that Islam is right/wrong, leaving nothing encyclopedic or useful. Hence, I propose that we ask for someone who has no previous knowledge or experience of Islam to do some research from a few books and come up with a shorter, far more encyclopedic article. Failing that, the article ought to be stripped to its barest of bones, a few basic statements of fact (areas found in, organizations found in, a very brief history) and a dictionary definition that are indisputable. Any additions could then be discussed before being added. Stephen 30 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above remarks are entirely helpful in settling the dispute. All constructive comments and edits you can make are gratefully received, but the more inflammatory editors (i.e. Germen and Yuber) no longer seem to be involved in this page and those who are left have been attempting to find a reasonable compromise by editing the draft and discussing references.

I'm not sure what a person can do about any "subconscious" biases they might have, but I'd still like to give the traditional Misplaced Pages method a go. I have posted this article for a RfC, although we are yet to get anyone helping out here from the RfC - not sure if I did it correctly! If you would like to create a seperate draft of your reduced version of the article in a sub-namespace here, however, that would be useful.

It is also worth pointing out that some editors dispute the "dictionary" definition of Islamophobia: nothing is quite so clear cut. I ask you familiarise yourself with the various points of dissent above. Axon 30 June 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Responding to RfC... Axon, do you really need another editor to tell you this?? Germen's argumentation has been ridiculous: he counters your good-faith attempts to find neutral references with cites from the lunatic fringe; he responds to your good-faith attempts to argue with ad hominem attacks that basically state that those coming from the Muslim point of view inherently lack credibility; he refuses to answer honest questions by accusing you of slander; he consistently makes outrageous Nazi analogies; he's probably sockpuppeting; etc. etc. etc. You should get a higher-up to set him straight. Dcarrano 02:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Dcarrano on this. Germen is not acting in good faith and is apparently Islamaphobic himself. Sigh. --Habap 13:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have considered putting him up for an RfA especially considering his recent actions. I would like to give him a chance first, on this talk page, so any contributions you guys can make to the discourse above would be gratefull received. Axon 13:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think an RFC would be more suitable at this stage. ~~~~ 19:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is already an RfC for this page: do you mean an RfC specific to the user? Axon 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

People who cannot win by arguments are resolving to baser means of achieving their goal. I already have received several complaints of people that Islam-critical articles get censorec here, even when references and sources were sufficient.

--Germen 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I'm trying to figure out if we need to keep the page protected. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, but I'm not sure I yet see consensus on what the page ought to say. Noel (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Despite the fact this page is a version preferred by Germen, I would recommend we keep this page protected for now. Judging from the comments above, further edit wars would not be unlikely at this point. No real agreement has been made and disruptive behaviour is breaking out on pagesa round this one (see Prejudice (islam) and Prejudices (islam) and the VfD there) for example. Axon 08:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add a link to the external links section. Maybe someone could add it when the page is unlocked? Or if I remember, I'll come back and do it. It's here:

"Islamophobia blamed for attack" by Vikram Dodd, The Guardian, July 13, 2005

It's an article about a man from Pakistan beaten to death in the UK by young men who shouted "Taliban" before they killed him. The Muslim community is angry because the police registered the attack as racist, instead of Islamophobic. It might be an interesting point to make in the article — that incidents that are possibly Islamophobic are being wrongly classified and it's therefore hard to keep track of numbers. Cheers, SlimVirgin 10:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

So, islamophobia IS something different than racism? From the horses' mouth. Hehehe. --Germen 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with SlimVirgin and the above is by no means evidence for anything except that some racist attacks should be more narowly defined as islamophobia. Axon 15:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not confuse you both. Sorry to correct you though. A "wrong classification" means wrong category. If islamophobia is a subsection from racism, the category is not wrong, but not specific enough. --Germen 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You're not , stricly speaking, "correcting" me but interpolating what SV wrote (he said "wrongly classified" by the way which could mean an mis-sub classification). Perhaps that is what SlimVirgin meant, perhaps not, perhaps we'll never know, but what I do feel is that it is probably irrelevant to the discussion here. Axon 15:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

When I said "wrongly classified," I was paraphrasing what was said in the article. I don't know whether the Muslim community in the UK wants a new category or a sub-category. Either way, they want Islamophobic incidents to be recorded as such, so they can keep track of how prevalent they are. Nothing else should be read into what I wrote. SlimVirgin 18:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Evaluation of supposed islamophobic claims

Several authors define islamophobia more specifically. According to them, Islamophobia encompasses the belief that Islam promotes

a religious fanaticism, b violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, c terrorism and rejects concepts such as

d equality e tolerance, f democracy and g human rights.

All Qur'an citations are from the English translation of Yusuf Ali of the "Noble Qur'an", considered as authorative by e.g. Diyanet. --Germen 10:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A Religious fanatism

This term, of course, is subjective. All religions with the possible exception of Zen buddhism praise adherence to their doctrines. The hadith contain a much-cited injunction to follow the middle path. Muslims which are adherents of more austere brands of islam, such as Salafism, define this middle path as the exact replication of Muhammads behaviour. Exceeding Mohammads example, e.g. praying seven times per day instead of five times, is considered extremism by this group.

Quotes and references from Salafi sources, please. Don't just summarize what you believe they believe to be "extremist."

Quote follows below: "Moderation in religion means following the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Exaggeration means trying to do more than he did, and negligence means not reaching that level. " - http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9466&dgn=4 --Germen 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your assessment of Zen Buddhism as a faith system that does not "praise adherence" to its "doctrines" may be oversimplifying things a little. Soto school and Rinzai school, and their respective offshoots, had and have a historic disagreement on the nature of the practice, and the role Zen played in promoting Japanese militarism before and during World War II is only now coming to light . BrandonYusufToropov 17:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of Zen, therefore I said possible. OK, what you said is well possible. Please note that Japanese Zen buddhism has some deviations of the original Chinese Zen. --Germen 09:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

B Violent tendencies towards non-Muslims

Qur'an 98:6: those who do not believe are the wordt of creatures

To the degree that you are deleting words from the middle of this verse, I respectfully maintain that you are MAKING THIS STUFF UP AS YOU GO ALONG.

The literal translation of this verse follows below. Qur'an 98:6 Those who disbelieve, among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. I did not add it because it is Misplaced Pages policy not to repeat available sources.

I'm not even going to bother checking the rest of your citations. Citing a translation and quoting it accurately, rather than rewriting the Qur'an on they fly, might help you move a step away from obvious bias. If that's a priority. BrandonYusufToropov 17:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If you differ with me, cite your sources as per Misplaced Pages policy.--Germen 13:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Germen is, indeed, interpolating citations in an completely original way so, in the sense you use and for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, he is "making it up as he goes along"... in other words, original research (or what was once called here as spoon feeding) as I have pointed out above in the Runnymede Definition section. None of the "evidence" Germen has submitted is usable unless he can actually demonstrate with his own reputable citations that others have applied it in the same way (i.e. to "disprove" the RD). I think this is clear and, without such evidence, his original reasoning can be safely ignored. Axon 09:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you differ with me, cite your sources as per Misplaced Pages policy. I did cite my sources, therefore I did not do original research. These are quotes from the YusufAli translation of the "Noble Qur'an". --Germen 10:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Please carefully read WP:NOR - the burden of proof to dispute the RD is with you, not I: please cite your sources that demonstrate that the RD has been disputed. Please do not ignore the points I raise above so I do not have to repeat myself. Axon 10:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete my comments, Germen. This is against Misplaced Pages policy! Axon 10:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If I did delete your comment, which seems the case, I did it by accident and I offer my apologies for the inconvenience. I have sufficient faith in the power of my arguments as to refrain from this kind of tactics. --Germen 14:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Quran 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind (the captives) firmly: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

If this is not a violent attitude towards non-Muslims, what is? --Germen 10:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

C Terrorism

Qur'an 59:2 It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers. Take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

--Germen 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the modern definition of the word terrorism works so well with a translation that more accurately is represented by the word fear. And notice that it is Allah doing the casting here.Heraclius 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The language in this aya is quite convoluted (as is characteristic of the Qur'an, I would like to say). If you read this verse over and over, it gives the impression that Allah instills terror by means of a Believing army. Disputed, I know. In other verses Believers are seen as instruuments of Allah which cast fear in the hearts of the enemies of islam. Terrorism basically means: spreading of fear. --Germen 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

True, a native Dutch speaker reading an English translation of the Qur'an would see it as convoluted. But let me ask you, how can God instill actual political violence into the hearts of unbelievers? Are you seriously saying that with the definition of terrorism this sentence makes sense?Heraclius 15:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, as I said, the wording is quite convolute and translations wildly vary, so I cannot be sure. But it goves me the impression that Allah instills fear in the hearts of the Unbelievers by means of the army of the Believers. Gosh, unbelievable 1.2 billion people take this crap seriously. --Germen 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, miost muslims are terrorists, so ..........

D Equality

Qur'an 4:32And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things.

Qur'an 4:34Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).

Qur'an 66:5It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you,- who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility), who fast,- previously married or virgins.

--Germen 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

E Tolerance

Qur'an 3:85 If anyone desires a religion other than Islám (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost.

This is about Muslim apostates.

Qur'an 3:87Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind ;-

Why are you adding your own explanations?

Qur'an 61:7Who doth greater wrong than one who forges falsehood against Allah, even as he is being invited to Islám? And Allah guides not those who do wrong.

This is about those who according to the Qur'an, reject the truth.

Qur'an 9:30The Jews call Ùzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

--Germen 10:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion."

Allah says: “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Allah’s sight are all of His servants.”

Allah says: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.”

Allah says: “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?”

Let me point out one more thing. Other religions clearly condemn people to hell for not believing. Islam says that if you are of the People of the Book, and you do good in your life, you will still go to heaven. Heraclius 15:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

- There is an entire Surah on non-believers, Al Kafiroon, allow me to quote it all.

Say : O ye that reject Faith! , I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Heraclius, indeed, I acknowledge these verses exist. Unfortunately, mainstream islam has the doctrine of abrogation, which means that earlier verses are replaced by later verses. In this respect Islam is unique, no other religion has a God which retract his own words. The ayaat you quoted date from the early Meccan period and have been abrogated by the later, less tolerant Medinense ayaat.

Note, however, that a small minority group of Muslims reject the doctrine of abrogation (and the less pleasant interpretations of Qur'an associated with mainstream islam), see at . Unique is that they have the theological means to reject inhuman elements, while mainstream Muslim have not, or only weak hadith from e.g. Tirmidhi. --Germen 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This entire section is terribly formatted and hard to read--Irishpunktom\ 15:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

F Democracy

Qur'an 33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman,

when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (i.e. only theocracy is allowed)

5:44 It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islám) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers. --Germen 10:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point of this section. This section is about the prejudice that Muslims are not able to live in democratic societies, not about what God said about Moses and what God said about disobeying him.Heraclius 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. These ayaat forbid cooperation with the making of any law which contradicts the Qur'an or the Sunnah, e.g. laws protecting the rights of homosexuals or protect freedom of religious conviction. When you vote for a democratic party, you are influencing the lawmaking process and hence have influence on this process. This makes voting an illegal endeavour unless you vote for a Muslim fundamentalist party which wants to implement Shariah. --Germen 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

G Human rights

The question whether islam promotes or objects to human rights can only be answered when it is known what is meant by human rights. When the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is used as basis, there exist several points in which this Declaration is at odds with some or all branches of Islam.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Islam agrees on that all human beings are born free. Islam considers Muslims as more dignified than "People of the Book", which are considered more dignified than polytheist or atheists, the "worst of creatures" according to the Qur'an, 98:6.

Islam recognizes only brotherhood between Muslims. Brotherhood between Muslim and non-Muslim is forbidden according to the Qur'an (5:51).--Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Islam distinguishes between Muslims, People of the Book and polytheists/atheists, see Article 1. Men have more rights than women, see article 1.

Islam does not recognize ethnic boundaries, although in some Hadith ethnic Arabs are seen as superior to non-Arabs.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Islam recognizes four categories of people: Muslims, subjugated people (dhimmi's), infidels which are at (temporary, maximum ten years ) truce with the Muslims and infidels which are at war with the Muslims (e.g. have not a temporary truce with the Muslims).

Dhimmi's are discriminated (see dhimmitude, infidels are warred against, thus have no security.

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

The shari'ah allows slavery and the enslavement of infidel prisoners of war. Releasing slaves is considered meritorious in islam.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Of course, which is torture or cruelty or not is subject to debate. Shari'ah prescribes punishments as flogging, stoning, cauterizing and cutting hands or feet. Most non-Muslims regard those as torture and cruelty.--Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Islam agrees on this, although Shari'ah considers non-Muslims as less trustworthy than Muslims and women less than men. --Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

According to Islam, men and women are treated differently for the law, as are Muslims, "people of the book" and infidels. In general, women have less rights than men (exception: the obligation of the husband to support the wife) and Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims (exceptions: non-Muslims can change their religion without being killed while Muslims are subject to death penalty after doing so, Muslims are obligated to participate in Jihad when their leader orders them while non-Muslims aren't).--Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Shari'ah allows all people, including non-Muslims, to appeal for a Qadi (judge). Of course, Shari'ah law regards the testimony of non-Muslims as less (or completely invalid) than that of Muslims and the testimony of women as less than that of men, so their chances to win the appeal are less. "False" witnesses, e.g. witnesses which cannot prove their accusations (e.g. because they are women or non-Muslims), are punished by flogging.

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Islam agrees on that. Nevertheless, Shari'ah regulations are at odds with the international standards of law as we saw, hence its judgements often do not meet this requirements.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal,
in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Islam agrees on that. Of course, a shariah court discriminates non-Muslims and women, so they will be discriminated against impartially.

Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law
in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Islam agrees on that.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence,
under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Islam agrees on that. Note, however, that actions not considered a penal offence in meny countries like adultery and leaving Islam are considered 'hadd' in islam.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Shari'ah deals with all facets of human life, outside of the house as well as inside the house, so arbitrary interferes with privacy, family, home and correspondence. Islam protects against attacks against someone's honour or reputation: false witnesses are punished by flogging. Of course, Shari'ah rules of evidence apply, i.e. the witness of a Muslim man is more inportant than the witness of a Muslima or non-Muslim.

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Non-Muslims were banned from the Hejaz (land around Mecca and Medina). Many Muslim countries ban Jews. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca or Medina.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Islam agrees on this. Muslims are encouraged to leave infidel lands.

Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Islam agrees on this.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Shari'ah does not allow a Muslim to be extradited to a non-Muslim country.

Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

Islam agrees on this, it must be noted that islam recognizes only the islamic Ummah as the nationality of a Muslim.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Many islamic countries, e.g. Morocco and Turkey, have a hereditary nationality which cannot be revoked. When islam ios considered a nationality, as Islam does, islam denies this right to Muslims. When a Muslim wants to leave islam, he is considered a murtadd (apostate) and according to Shari'ah, must be subjected to death penalty.

Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Within islam, men are allowed to have up to four wives and an unlimited number of concubines or sex slaves. Women can only marry with one man. Muslim men can marry Muslim, Christian and Jewish wifes, Muslim women only can marry Muslim men. The wife must obey the husband. Both can divorce at will, however the woman who divorces is considered as inferior, unless she divorces her husband because of his apostacy.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

islam agrees on this, but "the silence of virgins is considered as consent" (hadith).

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

islam agrees on this. Exceptions are families of captured infidels, the marriage is considered annulled, children can be sold at will and the wife can be kept as a sex slave after she has menstruated in order to exclude pregnancy.

Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Islam agrees on this, with the exception of the property of infidels at war with islam and apostates.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Islam agrees on this, note however that apostacy and war conditions are considered non-arbitrary deprivement of property.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Islam denies this right to Muslims. A Muslim who leaves islam muist be sentenced to death. Non-Muslims who live under the protection of islamic authorities, dhimmi's, are not allowed to convert Muslims to their religion. According to shari'ah, dhimmi's are not allowed to build new churches, temples or synagogues.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Islam recognizes this right with the exception of questioning islam, Muhammad or the shari'ah.

Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Islam recognizes this right.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Islam recognizes this right, with two exceptions. Muslims are compelled to join a jihad effort when they are called upon by their leaders. Muslims are not allowed to leave islam, so if islam is considered an association, this can be interpreted as compulsion.

Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Islam forbids the rule of a non-Muslim over a Muslim. There exists a limited self-rule for non-Muslims.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

Islam recognizes this right, however limited rights for dhimmi's apply.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

According to Islam, the will of Allah shall be the basis of authority of government. Leaders may be appointed by democratic procedures, but they are not allowed to introduce laws which contradict the teachings of the Qur'an or the Sunnah.

Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Islam recognizes this right for Muslims, within the restructions of islam. Non-Muslims have limited rights.

Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Islam recognizes this right for Muslims.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Islam does not recognize this right explicitly. Introducing this right, however, does not violate islamic teachings.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Islam recognizes this right.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Islam does not recognize this right explicitly. Introducing this right, however, does not violate islamic teachings.

Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Islam does not recognize this right explicitly. Introducing this right, however, does not violate islamic teachings.

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Islam does recognize this right to some degree. Children should take care for their parents. Widows or divorced women can marry to married to unmarried men. Old people without children, unattractive women and orphans are often forced to become beggars.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Islam knows a limited period (several months) in which the father should support children, even after divorce. After this period expires, no conditions apply.

Shari'ah does not recognize children born out of wedlock. Their mother can be sentenced to stoning, as the punishment of wedlock is death.

Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Islam agrees on the right of every individual to learn about islam. Sciences which violate islamic teachings are problematic. Islam does not recognize the other rights per se, but they are not in conflict with islamic teachings.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Islam restricts this right to education in islam. Islam considers only other Muslims as legitimate friends and brothers.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Islam agrees on this.

Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Islam restricts this right to activities which do not interfere with islamic tenets.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

According to several fatwa's, islam does recognize this right.

Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

War against other islamic nations is not allowed. According to islam, peace with infidels for longer than 10 years is forbidden. The truce can be broken if this favours the Muslim cause, see Treaty of Hudabya. A truce is allowed only when this truce improves the strategic prospects of the Muslims.

Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Islam supports this statement.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Islam restricts this rights.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Not applicable

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Not applicable, unless this interpretation is seen as islamophobic. --Germen 11:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Solving the dispute

BrandonYusufToropov has proposed to start an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding this page. I have agreed to Brandon's proposal.

I think we must agree on:

the definition of islamophobia
because agreement on this definition likely will imply the dictionary definition, we must decide which prejudices about islam are obviously wrong and hence real prejudices (thus can be classified as islamophobia) and which are partially or completely right and hence not a prejudice=>islamophobia; these pseudo-prejudices must be put in a separate "disputed" subparagraph
use the definition of islamophobia to decide which is real islamophobia and which is not. Disputed incidents of islamophobia must be moved to a "disputed" subparagraph.

Brandon (or others), what is your proposal? --Germen 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the above represents an attempt to resolve the dispute: unless I am misinterpreting you, your position on using original research does not seem to have actually changed. Once again, unless you can supply evidence that definitions are directly disputed or contradicted using primary and secondary sources there is no basis to assume any of the definitions are disputed. Judging by his remarks, I think Brandon agrees with me on this (Brandon, can you confirm your position?). If you can supply such sources I will concede, but you have so far failed to do. If you cannot, I ask that you concede on this point and accept the Runnymede Definition, even if you disagree it should apply.

I will agree it is clear that there is some dispute over how Islamophobia applies or who it applies to, or that it applies at all. However, this is not the same as disputing the definition.

Also, we do not "agree" on the definition (as you like to keep mentioning, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy): we summarise the definition from sources. Similarly, we do not decide what are "right" or "wrong" prejudices (see NPOV) - obviously many consider these genuine prejudices and it is not up to us to determine definitively what are "pseudo-" or not, particularly using the loaded terminology above. Axon (talk|contribs) 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Axon, the sources contradict. The Runnymede Definition contradicts both Islamic religious sources as well as the dictionary definition. This makes it POV and problematic to use the Ruinnymede Definition as the sole source for defining islamophobia. Do you have any valid argument against using the dictionary definition in which we all seem to agree and which does not contradict common parlance or islamic theological sources? --Germen 11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Do your sources directly contradict, or do they contradict only if taken into consideration with your own original research above? If the former then please summarise them here so I can examine them myself. If the later then we have not really progressed in the dispute at all. It is not POV to represent all significant views and, without evidence of actual direct dispute of the definition, the view that the RD is invalid is a non-significant minority view and not covered by WP:NPOV.

You misunderstand the point. I do not say the RD view is not worth mentioning, I say the RTD does not qualify as an universally valid definition. Call it fuzzy logic if you like. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet, you are attempting to demonstrate that the RD is "wrong", you even make reference to "right" and "wrong" above. Again, if you think there is an alternative definition of Islmaphobia that perhaps contradicts the RD then please cite the reference. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point about the dictionary definition: the two seem mutually compatible. They only seem to contradict if you use your specious reasoning above. I'm not sure what you mean by common parlance, or which islamic theological sources deal directly with the RD. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Runnymede Trust Definition:

1 Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2 Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

3 Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4 Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5 Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.

6 Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

7 Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

8 Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

1: islamic theology has a derogatory word for innovation: bidah. So by virtue of its theology it is unresponsive to change. Changing islam makes one a murtadd.

3: islamic law treats men and women differently, hence it can be called sexist as per definition of sexism. Several hadith and a Qur'anic verse forbids too much inquisitive questions about e.g. who created Allah, hence the epitome irrational may be correct to some extent (it must be emphasized that reasoning by Islamists usually is rational, as long as their axioms are not questioned). Islam forbids innovation (bidah) which contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah and idealizes a half-nomadic past, hence has less impetus for progress than e.g. the West. According to common Western civilizational standards, Shari'ah punishments such as flogging, stoning, killing gays and the amputation of hands are seen as backwards and primitive. Whether this is true or not is of course dependent of your preferred definition of "barbaric".

4: Islamic law recognizes two allowed states of relations between the Muslim state and non-Muslim states: WAR or TRUCE (the latter typically not longer than 10 years and only when the Muslim state is too weak for a successful offensive war). Muslims identify themselves primarily with the Muslim ummah as exemplified by a recent worldwide opinion poll, see above).

5. Islam is both a political system as a religion. This makes it unique among religions.

Repeating those four marked statements is "islamophobic" according to the Runnymede Trust Definition. But it is the stance of orthodox Islam and most Muslims. QED.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of that is actual evidence of anything except your own perspective on Islam. You are clearly avoiding providing direct references and I ask you once again to provide links and references to sources that directly contradict or dispute the RD.Axon (talk|contribs) 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will add them. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

They have been added. For most people this evidence suffices. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

So I will summarize the points:

The Runnymede Trust qualifies for the definition of a lobby group, hence is not an objective source as per Misplaced Pages standards.
Four of the eight points of the Runnymede Trust Definition are identical to orthodox islamic dogmas.
One of the eight points of the Runnymede Trust Definition, rejection of critics, is not exclusively islamophobic, but holds for all over-self confident people, including many Muslkims themselves regarding criticism of Islam.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, you did not add any evidence except a link to a report on "attitudes" that makes no mention of Islmaophobia or the RD. The rest of your thesis requires further citation that is completely lacking.

This report proves the majority of Muslims see themselves as Muslim rather than national of their country or world citizen, thus warranting the so-called "islamophobic prejudice" about islam as a monolithic block. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Does it? It only demonstrates the attitudes of some muslims and you have yet to provide evidence of the rest. Axon (talk|

contribs) 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This report deals about the majority of Muslim populations (e.g. Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt have the largest Muslim populations in the world) and shows a clear majority for the points I mentioned. So you must read better and be less POV. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What is more, you claim "Runnymede Trust qualifies for the definition of a lobby group" and that this somehow doesn't make it an objective source, quite aside from the fact that there are no such thing as objective sources and without providing any evidence that it actually lobbies. You just making blind assertions and expecting the reader to just believe you. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Runnymede Trust tries actively to influence politics and lawmaking process. This is stated in the article. A lobby group is defined as any organisation which tries to influence government political decision process or lawemaking process. Thus, (Runnymede Trust.IsLobbyGroup)==TRUE, in Java parlance. In the article I state it less boldly. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me, right? Firstly, that's incorrect Java. Secondly, it demonstrates nothing other than your own POV: (Germen.IsWrong == true) See I can do it too! Preposterous. You are clearly being obstructive here. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, on Java you're more qualified than I so I take your word on that. :) However, you seem to evade the discussion on the political and lobbyist group nature of the Runnymede Trust. Can you prove with arguments that the Runnymede Trust is not a lobby group but a think tank? --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Objective sources do not exist but there exist less and more objective sources. A dictionary editor is more objective than a political activist group like the Runnymede Trust.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it? I don't think a definition accepted by various government bodies is any less reputable and objective than a dictionary defition - they would both seem to complement each other. Again, I find you are being uncompromising and onbstructive and continued debate on this topic does not seem to be getting anywhere. You would seem to be looking for an argument on this page, rather than a genuine attempt to discuss anything, so I'm going to await the results of the RfC and see what happens then. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

So acceptance by a government body makes something reputable, isn't it? You mean: history is written by the winners? About three centuries ago, pi as estimated to be 4 by a government body. Zeno of Elea has treated the Runnymede definition with some minor modifications to my POV. I don't know what the state of affairs is in the UK, but here in Holland we think the notion of truth changing when a new government comes into place is ridiculous and undesired.

As I said repeatedly, you do not logically validify the argument because of your biased point of view. This is obstruction, as you continue to obstruct any attempt to solve this editing controversy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Islamophobia effort by Malaysian Prime Minister

On 21 July, 2005, during a major policy speech at the UMNO General Assembly, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he felt it is his duty to prevent Islam and its symbols from being used to propagate violence. He set three missions for himself – continuing to remind the world community to understand the root causes of terrorism, explaining that Islam is a religion of peace and opposed to violence, and showcasing Malaysia as a modern Islamic country and a safe place to invest and visit. Prime Minister Badawi is also the current chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. (The Star) (Iranian Quran News Agency)(Islam Online)

Please add the above information to the article after the protection is lifted. The article has been protected for what, one month?!?! -- Vsion 00:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of submission, as manifested by the literal meaning of the Arabic word al-Islaam. Spreading inaccurate statements about islam cannot be seen as anti-islamophobia efforts, but rather as whitewashing. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Are you saying that there is an "inaccurate statement" of the Prime Minister's speech, or the Prime Minister made an "inaccurate statement" on Islam? Can you point out what is this "inaccurate statement"? Can you point out what is the "whitewashing" (implying denial) effort you mentioned? Is it therefore your position that Islam is a religion of violence? Vsion 19:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The latter: calling islam a religion of peace is incorrect. Islam means submission. If there is submission to Islamic authority, violence it not necessary according to islam. It can be described as Pax Islamica. Mahathir made such a statement (i.e. islam is peace), the statement was incorrect however.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 07:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The given quote makes no mention about "submission". It simply says "...Islam is a religion of peace and opposed to violence ... ", which you said is incorrect; it follows then that Islam is a religion of (or espousing) violence. This is your position, right? -- Vsion 10:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My position is that Islam is a religion of peace when it has the upper hand and there is no resistance against islam. When islam is not in such a position, violence is one of the accepted means to achieve this objective, when other means fail. So peace is not a core tenet of islam and characterizing islam as a religion of submission to Allah is more accurate. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 11:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict with Badawi's statement or Mahathir's statement in any significant way. In fact, you partially agree that "Islam is a religion of peace" in the very least. --Vsion 00:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the page has been protected for a while but as soon as it is unprotected I will endeavour to add the above. Any input you can give the resolve the dispute on this page would be gratefully received. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

An overt tactic to ostracize anyone critical of Islam

DEFINITION OF PHOBIA: an irrational fear

RUNNYMEDE DEFINITION OF "ISLAMAPHOBIA":

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

Is it irrational to believe that Islam is a rigid religion, deeply rooted in the past, and based on static scripture that do not change with time? I think the evidence in the world around us speaks for itself. It was only four years ago that the Taliban were stonning people to death for having sex and chopping people's hands off for theft. Clearly, huge portions of the Muslim world still adhere to an Islam that is static and has been unpresponsive to change. The authors of this "defintion" have implicitly declared that Islam is dynamic and responsive to change without having proved their claims, and have gone on to labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a xenophobic "Islamaphobe." This seems more like an extreme form of POV pushing and thought control that is being endorsed by Misplaced Pages.

2. Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

Islam is inevitably seen by non-Muslims as seperate and other. Just as Muslims see pagan religions like Hinduism to be seperate and other.

3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

Claiming that Islam is not barbaric, irrational, primitive or sexist is a big claim indeed. The Qur'an condones terrible forms of torture, such as lashing, amputation of hands, bleeding people to death by amutating limbs, and crucifiction. It is an affront to human reason to claim that such practices are not cruel and remicient of a barbaric age. It is an affront to human reason to claim that anyone who thinks that Islam is irrational is a xenophobe suffering from irrational fears. Similarly, people with different idea of what is primitive and what is not could easily see Islam (and indeed religion itself) to be primitive. These are not issues that have anything to do with xenophobia or irrational fear. Similarly, it is widely believed that Islam is sexist. The Qur'an condones the beating of women, and states in no unclear terms that the testimony of a woman is worth half the testimony of a man. Islam was invented in an age when sexism was the cultral norm, and this is a sociological phenomenon that is a part of the religion of Islam. Again, it is unjust to accuse people, who point out these facts, of being xenophobic. Mainstream Islam has a problem with equal rights between the genders, and accusing people who say so of "Islamaphobia" does nothing to address the fact that this problem exists. Claiming that people who see Islam as "inferior to the West" sounds more an indication of an inferiority complex than legitimate concerns about real xenophobia.

4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

Many fundamentalist Muslims believe that Islam is violent, aggressive, threatening and supportive of terrorism. Does that mean that fundamentalist Muslims can be Islamaphobic? Misplaced Pages articles such as offensive Jihad, militant Islam, Islamist terrorism, and so forth, demonstrate that Islam can be violent, aggressive, threatening, and even supportive of terrorism. These people seem to be in denial of the fact that Islam has violent and aggressive strains, and that that such strains have a long standing historical precedent. Pretending that such strains do not exist, and labelling anyone who points them out as an "Islamaphobe," in an outrageous attempt to control human discourse and does nothing to solve the of extremist militant Islam.

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

See Islam as a political movement, Islamism, Jihad, and offensive Jihad. I can't believe that someone would have the nerve to suggest that anyone who sees Islam as a political movement is an "Islamaphobe." This right here proves that the Runnymede defintion of "Islamaphobia" is an extremist POV that and should not be adopted as a definition by Misplaced Pages.

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

One can only imagine what "criticisms made by Islam" means. What ciriticisms of the West are made by Islam? Perhaps the authors of this ridiculous document meant "ciriticism made of the West by Muslims?" Even if that is what they meant, it is not what they wrote, and a such it makes what they wrote useless.

7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

Now I have no objections to this particular defintion. This accurately and succicintly describes the problem of Islamaphobia, and it is a just defintion.

8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

I also agree with this particular defintion. These last two defintions seem to be a good defintion of Islamaphobia.

--Zeno of Elea 14:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference between religious discrimination and freedom of thought

In as much as "Islamaphobia" refers to injust discrimination and xenophobia against Muslims, there is no need to ask whether Islam is primitive or advanced, static or dynamic, barbaric or civilized. Muslims must be seen as individuals. One can object to Islam in its entirety without being xenophobic or discriminatory towards Muslims. Many people who read the Qur'an and hadith feel that Islam is a religion that is rigid, violent, primitive, sexist, etc. People have the right to their own opinion, and this article should not turn into a theological debate about what exactly shariah or the Qur'an says. Like I said, it is possible to object to a religion without being xenophobic towards its adherents. For example, I am generally opposed to Islam, but that does not mean that I am generally opposed to Muslims. We are all entitled to our own opinion about various ideologies and religions. But it is not ethical or even rational to hold discriminatory or xenophobic views towards the adherents of a major world religion. That should be the extent to which this article criticizes other people's beliefs as being "Islamaphobic." This is not the place for arguing about Qur'an verses, this is about the right of Muslims to equality, justice and freedom, regardless of whether or not they believe in secular ideals of equality, justice and freedom. --Zeno of Elea 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Examples

On 26 July 2005, a trans-Atlantic flight from Los Angeles to London was diverted to Boston when passengers were nervous about three Pakistani passengers acting suspiciously. The trio were detained and then released after questioning. They were later allowed to take another flight to London. (Guardian)

This is an example of Islamophobia, which is real and around us; it affects the lives of ordinary innocent people. Please add the above text, after protection is lifted. --Vsion 03:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that this represents Islamophobia. The article doesn't detail the suspicious activities or the reactions on the flight (it only states that with one of them in First Class, they were moving between there and the normal seats), it is hard to tell whether the diversion of the flight was unjustified. After landing, it was found that nothing was amiss, but without having been on the flight, we cannot know whether the same would have happened if the three men were middle-aged WASPs. As such, without further detail, labelling this event Islamophobic is under-informed POV. --Habap 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If there are more details, why didn't the authorities, the airline or other passengers tell us more? As it stands now, the only thing was that a first class passenger moved to other section (maybe a few times), I didn't know there's a flight rule against that. --Vsion 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally, the cabin crew will politely tell you that it is not permitted. Disobeying the directions of the cabin crew is a federal offense. As it stands now we know that they were acting suspiciously. Until further evidence emerges that it was not suspicious, it's not fair to say that the reaction was Islamophobic. I'd quote some things, but not sure any say anything specifically about what was reported Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR), Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, which may only be a slice of what actually happened. Until we know more, speculation on the motivations of the cabin crew are mere speculations. Also, note that while the passengers were reported as Pakistanis, no indication of their religious choices were provided. It may be Pakistani-phobia. --Habap 19:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Then just leave the text in this talk page, as it already is. --Vsion 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection 2

I have just checked again, to see if some agreement has been reached here, but although the discussion seems to have gone quiet for a bit, I still don't feel that I see evidence that people have come to some sort of agreement on the content of this page. Lacking that, I'm concerned that unprotecting the page will result in an immediate resumption of the edit war. Or would people rather have it unprotected, and see how it goes? Comments? Noel (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --Zeno of Elea 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would agree the dispute is still raging. Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response. I would recommend keeping the page protected in the meantime. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As you can see above, Noel, user:Axon consistently obstructs any sensible effort to come to a more objective and neutral version of this article by continuously referring to the arbitrary Runnymede Trust definition of islamophobia as the sole authorative definition and trying to get people banned who disagree with his narrow POV. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:25, 28 July 2005 editAxon (talk \| contribs)2,062 editsm →Page protection 2 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:38, 28 July 2005 edit undoGermen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,144 edits →Page protection 2 Next edit →
Line 582:		Line 582:
	: The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --] 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)		: The Runnymede Trust definition of Islamophobia must be renounced. It is not even clear why it is worthy of mention. --] 07:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
	I would agree the dispute is still raging. Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response. I would recommend keeping the page protected in the meantime. ] (]\|]) 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)		I would agree the dispute is still raging. Having exhausted all attempts to resolve the dispute I have taken this issue to RfC and RfA and am awaiting a response. I would recommend keeping the page protected in the meantime. ] (]\|]) 10:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
			:As you can see above, Noel, ] consistently obstructs any sensible effort to come to a more objective and neutral version of this article by continuously referring to the arbitrary ] definition of islamophobia as the sole authorative definition and trying to get people banned who disagree with his narrow POV. --] (] \| ] ]) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)