From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Criticism of Islam task force article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Criticism of Islam. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Astonishing 1.1 Totally disputed tag 1.2 Factual inaccuracies 1.3 POV 1.4 Sources please? 1.5 POV sections 1.6 Farhud 1.7 Safety backup 1.8 beyond repair 1.9 Giving up on this! 1.10 in favor of persecution 1.11 VFD debate link 1.12 POV 1.13 Totally Disputed 1.14 Disputed, totally 1.15 Separate headings 1.16 Request to Ril 1.17 Inconsistency 1.18 Current persecutions? 1.19 add tags

[edit] Astonishing

Is it not amazing that nobody sees fit to dispute the neutrality of the article regarding persecutions by Christians, but Wikipedia is quite punctilious about defending the reputation of every other religion?

      I agree... Christianity is a safe target. God forbid you speak about the daily   
      atrocities the Muslim extremists do on a daily basis in the name of religion. This   
      article could be longest article on Wikipedia if we included the examples of these   
      atrocities from JUST the 21st century.

[edit] Totally disputed tag

The Netrality of this article is inherently loaded against Islam itself, and Muslims. Furthermore it contains a lot of factual errors. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Of course persecution by Muslims is a black page in the history of islam, as is the persecution of Jews, heretics and "witches" in the history of christianity. Mentioning unfavourable historical facts, or a collection of those facts, does not constitute a lack of neutrality. Only misrepresentation, biased language or such as that do so.

Besides, you say there are a lot of factual errors. If so, please point out the factual errors then in order to inprove factual accuracy of this article. You even did not try to do that. --Germen 10:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with including them, but they should be included in a POV way. As for factual inaccuracies, there are a lot of factual errors, of which my personal favourite is mis-spelling Yathrib, and then calling it Mecca --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the factual errors which you mentioned. Are there any more? If not so, is it OK that I remove your tag?

Non-neutral POV? OK, if so, add your POV then. --Germen 10:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go through it now. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've given up on it for now. It's terribly written and very incorrect. I will try re-write it later tonight.--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a list or something for all POV and inaccuracy manifestations? --Germen 12:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factual inaccuracies

I found two inaccuracies: Medina was Yatrib, Mecca was Dedan, not Yatrib. Corrected. Irishpunktom, do you see any more factual inaccuracies? --Germen 10:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• No factual inaccuracies reported, so I assume the article is free from factual errors as for now. --Germen 09:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "Yathrib", while the Dedan of the Bible was a northeastern Arabian oasis far from the location of Mecca. AnonMoos 17:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

We try here to describe events which qualify as persecution. I tried to be as neutral as possible. Alternative viewpoints are welcome, of course. --Germen 20:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• No specific instances of POV reported, so I think the article is free from POV as now. --Germen 09:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources please?

Can you please source statements like "Some Muslim theologicians (sic) have used this example as a justification of the killing of prisoners after they surrendered. This event has been used as a justification of the enslavement of prisoners of war as well and turning female prisoners into concubines or sex slaves." Furthermore, if you are using the hadith of Bukhari as a source then the statement "the Banu Quraiza, the single remaining Jewish tribe in Medina" is factual inncorrect. Further, Why do you treat some statements in the Hadith of Bukhari as absolute fact while others alledged.. It's the same source. "estimated to number around seven hundred" What estimate? Who's estimate? Where does this estimate come from? "he married with her" - What the hell does that mean? Why is it taken as fact that he "made the widow Rayhana.. a concubine", yet only "According to some reports, he married with her" - It's the same source, the ever-so-dodgy Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq (a man described as a liar by the Imam Malik, father of the Maddhabs), the same source as the Satanic Verses and several other discredited stories.

This really is very poorly written. Are you deliberately trying to instigate a revert war? Stop removing validly placed tags --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is in need of citations and corrections, but I wouldn't say that it is "very poorly written". Until then, the tags should stay.

(the preceding paragraph was not my comment - --Germen 12:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC))

• • Sources added for the Banu Quraiza section --Germen 12:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Babajobu 12:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV sections

I removed the disputed number of executed Banu Qurayza males. It can be sourced to the disliked Sirat, but I don't really think the number is necessary. I also removed the disputed text below until it can be sourced. I don't think the article is "very poorly written" at all, nor do I think it is inherently POV against Muslims anymore than persecution of Muslims is inherently Islamophilic. But I do think this article needs sourcing. Babajobu 10:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Some Muslim theologians have used this as a precedent and justification for the killing of prisoners of war. It has also been used as a justification for the enslavement of prisoners of war and the taking of female prisoners of war as concubines or sex slaves.

The specific POV issues that were raised have now been addressed, and articles have been started on religious persecution by other groups, unencumbered by totally disputed tags, which I hope will allay the anxieties of some that this is an inherently Islamophobic topic. May we now remove the "totally disputed" tag from this article? Babajobu 11:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, but we should hear the opinion of user:Irishpunktom. --Germen 12:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No response from Tom. OK, he can add the tag when he seems it fit and listed all inaccuracies.--Germen 13:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farhud

Added section on this massacre of Iraqi Jews, with some additional info from a Jewish website. However, I'm concerned about the POV and would like to be referred to a Muslim website on the same topic to integrate that info into the text. Thanks. Babajobu 15:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safety backup

I have put a copy of this page to my personal user page. Feel free to edit it there before this one gets deleted unfairly (there is a majority of delete votes on this page without objective reasons for them) --Germen 12:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] beyond repair

From the absurd notion that Mecca was called Dedan (Dedan is a real city, but is a long way away from Mecca - it is modern Al Ula) to the totally anachronistic mention of "dhimmis" (let alone jizya!) in the early Medinan period, to the "three important prohibitions" one of which isn't even a prohibition and the other two of whose time of introduction is less than clear, this is clearly beyond fixing. If edits as utterly uninformed as this are being allowed to stand, there's no point in hoping for this article to reach an acceptable level of accuracy. - Mustafaa 19:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• I checked sources, indeed the pre-islamic name for Mecca should be Macoraba instead of Dedan. The dhimmi wording will be changed so that it will be chronically correct as per Mustafaa's suggestions. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giving up on this!

I tried to take a more scholarly approach to the subject. The subsequent editting, ommision and additon of material seems to be heading in a more and more subjective approach to the material. May I suggest, to future editors of this piece that they take a less perjorative stance on the addition of material. Good Luck! Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] in favor of persecution

a glance at the "in favor" section leaves me wondering what in those verses indicates support for persecution. they all seem to indicate that God will judge the unbelievers harshly, but there's no indication that Muslims should do so. i think it's important to either:

a) find quranic verses actually supporting persecution

b) retitle the section, "verses sometimes used to support persecution" and attribute such use to those who actually use them that way.

or c) explain how those verses actually support persecution, because i'm at a loss.

thoughts? Ungtss 13:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have added the motivation.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD debate link

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article has a fair amount of generalizations and problems. For instance While most Muslims accept the traditions from the Sunnah, they are rejected by a minority of Quranic Muslims. leaves out the fact that Sunni / Shia / Ibadi / etc books of hadith differ. "In favour of Persecution" / "Against persecution" are silly titles because there is no definite in it. Users who believe Islam is not for what we call persecution would say that those "for" quotes are not for persecution but taken out of context. The real issue is are they used to defend perseuction by Muslims or not. Obviously those quotes have been used to defend persecution by various sects and so references should be cited in terms of the persecution and not as persecution in themselves. This is obviously a disputed article so I will not make content edits until I am more well versed on how this page is working -- I am adding the NPOV tag because it is clear from VfD discussion that a fair few believe this article has problems. Tony seemingly removed it because of style considerations. Comments would be appreciated about what I have said above. gren 10:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Grenavitar, a VfD in itself is not a valid ground to regard an article POV, e.g. nonsense articles. Likewise, POV is no reason why an article should be deleted, but that is another matter. There should be specific points in which the different contributing authors disagree. As long as this points are not explicitly mentioned, it can be assumed the article is not POV. Be bold. You have, however, mentioned some points, which I will summarize below to verify if I understood you well, so we can work for a solution. Can you corroborate them?
  • The real issue is which reasons are mentioned by Muslims or have been mentioned by Muslims to justify / object to persecution.
  • Definition of persecution is not clear.
  • References should me made to the scope in which arguments in favour of/against persecution are applicable to which Muslim flavours

As far as I understand you, the problems seem to be confined to the "Arguments in favour/against persecution" section, so we can replace the POV tag by a subparagraph POV tag. Agreed? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What I was trying to say about the VfD is that many users there stated they had problems with this article for various reasons. My proposal was to link to more specific persecution by Muslim sects from this because I do believe this will and does over-generalize. I have accepted the results but I think the comments on the VfD page are relevant in showing that a substantial number of editors had a problem with this article. I'd accept making it a SectNPOV for Theological reasons in favour of and against persecution I have not gone over the other sections but since it was rather large section I just put a POV tag over the whole article -- so changing that will be fine. I will try to state some of my reasons more clearly:

• Stating that a Qur'an quote is for or against persecution renders any Muslim's point of view incoherent. Muslims view the Qur'an as a whole and while they may put emphasis on some quotes they would surely not believe that half of the quotes were for something and the others were contradicting that. Which is what I think this article is implying. The theology behind this would (usually) be internally coherent with groups that have not persecuted people like modern liberals for example citing the "against persecution" quotes as supporting their view and then the "for persecution" quotes as being limitted in scope or having strictly non-violent meanings. Therefore the quotes in a completely nonviolent group would be all against persecution and the quotes for a more violent group could all justify the persecution. I think what exists now is POV because it shows that us editors are reading those quotes and saying they are violent. If Muslim groups take their context as different it is perfectly within their rights and we cannot say that they quotes are "for persecution".
• It's not exactly the definition that worries me. It is how we are using it. No Muslim group is going to say they allow persecution and it's obvious that most people believe that some Muslim groups do persecute. Therefore it is almost imperative that the theology be combined with incidents to show that the theology has led to persecution. Not that it can't go into theology free from event but, this must all be done carefully.
• Related to above is how to deal with persecution in Muhammad's time. This is obviously a touchy issue and what is called persecution by some is justified by others in seemingly endless debates. We must show both sides and not lean towards whether or not it is persecution. Now that I am thinking about it we might want to just leave persecution more ambiguous within this article and link to Persecution. Persecution is a broad subject and we are not the measuring stick for the history of Islam, not to mention that the things that we cite may use the word persecution in different manners so us defining it contrary to our sources definitions will cause confustion and conflict.
• It is necessary that this article, like all controversial articles, be well sourced. That doesn't necessarily mean a lot of sources -- it means good ones.

We can discuss more as we work through these things. By the way, I'd prefer if you didn't bold or change my comments (other than to make more readable formatting wise). It's not big deal but I just like to put my own emphasis on things. Comments? gren 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Agreed. I already added links to fatwa's which use these Qur'anic verses as evidence that persecution is allowed. There may be well fatwa's from other authorative Muslim sources which contradict this interpretation. If so, please add them. May be we should rewrite the section such that we group the reasons for persecution into reasons for kinds of persecution (i.e. killing of apostates, discrimination of Jews/Christiand, discrimination of kuffaar s.s., incitred for hatred etc and add both pro and anti viewpoints. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Why does this page exist? There is no persecution by Muslims. Violence is forbidden by the Q'uran except when justified. It is offensive to even have such a page. It should be deleted! Saduj al-Dahij 15:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your view is unfortunately not shared by all Muslims, so there exists persecution by Muslims to some extent, e.g. in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. I think therefore a legitimate attempt to discuss this may be of informative value. See the Theological Reasons section. And consider the fact that many Muslims consider several persecutional activities as justified, e.g. the killing of apostates, homosexuals, stoning of adulterers etc. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my view is shared by all true Muslims. Muslims who object are apostates. They wish to believe that Islam can be secular, but Islam is not secular. Muslims who live contrary to the teachings of Mohammed (peace be upon him) have to be corrected. Saduj al-Dahij 18:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Germen, I just want to point something out. When we refer to Qur'an alone Muslims it means the whole breadth of Muslims who reject all but Qur'an. Originally it was Edip Yuksel's article and those related to United Submitters but now it merely points to a general movement who reject all but the Qur'an. As Zora mentioned there is a Hungarian who believed in Slavery (I think) who was Qur'an alone. While this is at odds with the Submitters it is still encompassed by the Qur'an alone concept. It is true that a lot have worked for their own Qur'an translations but it does not limit people from using Yusuf Ali or, since they could of course be Arabic speaking, the original. There is one issue I am fuzzy on. There are Muslims who reject hadith on principle -- there are also ones that reject it on unreliability. I am not sure if we are characterizing the latter as Qur'an alone -- even though they are de facto Qur'an alone. Well, maybe not since many modernists will reject some hadith but accept philosophical teachings as guidance whereas Qur'an alone in terms of guidance means that nothing can be used for religious guidance besides the Qur'an because nothing else is needed as the Qur'an is complete. So, the first part I am sure about the second I am not. gren グレン 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Gren, agreed, but I think this part belongs to the article about Qur'an alone Muslims. So let's improve the Qur'an alone article so that it is more clear. Too generalistic statements about the Qur'an alone movement in this article must be corrected as per your suggestions. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed

1. "According to several hadith of the Bukhari collection, the Banu Qurayza, a remaining Jewish tribe in Medina, allegedly committed treason during the Battle of the Trench. The Muslims laid siege to their fortifications." - Why did are the Jewish tribes crimes allesged, wheras the Muslim reaction is fact? You are using the very same source, thus one can only assume a POV twist on sources.

• Muslim sources do not specify an actual treason, only a Muslim suspection of treason. See main article about Banu Quraiza.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "However, Muhammed and his cadre reneged on the agreement" - All sources available say that the Quraysh attacked the Bedouin, breaching the treaty

• • The avilable sources say that the Quraish did not break the treaty themselves but one of their allies did. When the Quraish refused to condemn that ally or pay qisaas, the treaty was terminated. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "Muhammad's reasons for breaking it has often served as a role model for concluding treaties (hudna) with non-Muslims." - Firstly, a Hudna is a cease-fire, not a treaty - A treaty may bring about a Hudna, but they are not the same thing. Secondly, Source?

• OK, renamed Hudna as a truce (which is a kind of treaty btw). Arafat mentioned this truce in several mosque sermons. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number 10,000 men. Faced with inevitable disaster, the Meccans submitted without a fight." - how was it inevitable? Mecca attacked Medina only 3 years earlier with a larger army and failed, Who says "disaster" was inevitable?

• In the last three years a lot of Arab tribes switched loyalty to Mohammed. Removed wording.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "the shrine a Muslim shrine" - What shrine? The Kabaa was a shrine, but ceased to be when the idols were destroyed. It is not a shrine.

• OK, changed into "Muslim sanctuary".--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "The Hanbali school of Shariah considers this event as a basis for its position not to allow any dhimmis to stay in Muslim territories." - Source this. Also, explain which countries are ruled by leaders who follow the Hanbali Maddhab, and why it is that in some of these countries a huge proportion of the population is "Dhimmi".

• There are other categories too: guests and those who seek sanctuary with Muslims. They are not resident dhimmi's but temporary guests.

1. "Muhammad received what he described as a relevation from Allah in which he was warned of a murder attempt on his life by the Banu Nadir. He and his followers prepared for an attack on the Banu Nadir. After negotiations, Muhammad agreed to allow the Banu Nadir to leave Medina with their possessions, leaving behind their houses and lands." - Any source for alll of this? And what about the Bani Nadir's role in the battle of the trench?

• I have sources, [1], [2] and [3].

There is no relation between the events regarding the Banu Nadit and the Battle of the Trench, because the Banu Nadir were already banned before that time.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "Muslim women are allowed to marry only Muslim men, while non-Muslim women could marry men of any religion. However, the same does not apply for non-Muslim men, which were not allowed to marry Muslim women without converting to Islam." - That makes no sense.

• It makes. OK, breaking up the sentence in smaller sentences, hope that helps.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I need to go now, but I'm sure there is more. Putting the tag back --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, now at least you are motivating your tag. Let us treat those points.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Treated most points. Unfinished and disputed sections marked as such, general tag removed (all POV sections have been marked now). Feel free to add more if you disagree with some sections and cannot correct the inaccuracies on the spot. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed, totally

I have

• Put the tag back
• Started tidying it up so that it actually resembles an encyclopedia article rather than a manifesto or political pamphlet. US vs THEM is an extremely inappropriate way to write an encyclopedia article, as is building an article as a long series of large quotes.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate headings

An article is more readable when there are separate sections with clear titles. For this reason I think it is better to introduce those sections in relevant parts of the articles. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

An article is less readable when the frequency of paragraphs to seperate sections is less than 2. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 12:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Ril

You seem to prefer endless uncommented and undocumented reverts. Too bad, you vandalise all quotes too. Please keep in mind that the aim of Wikipedia is the improvement of online quality. One essential key in this is the quoting of referenxces to onlien sources. By vandalizing them you do decrease the quality of the infromation in Wikipedia. You better stop this practice. If you believe your POV is true, then defend it by adding more and better references. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer articles that apply NPOV. You have constantly exhibited anti-islamic edits - and admitted you have a negative view of Islam. You had better stop POVing articles. Reverting POV is not considered "vandalism", indeed accusing someone of vandalism when all they have done is restored a more neutral version, or even a version they consider more neutral but others may not, is actually considered a personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 11:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• You delete well-sourced information. Ka'b ibn Ashraf dit not just "die", he was killed. This POV wording, as killing indicated a violent death. And Ka'b ibn Ashraf died such a deatch. I did not say murdered, which would be POV. This is just one example. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• It says "death" not "he died", the text also neutrally indicates that he was killed rather than dying from natural causes. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

We've got an inconsistency problem between this article and the other two in the series, Historical persecution by Jews and Historical persecution by Christians.

Two problems: first, the definition of "persecution" used here is: "Persecution in this sense refers to any arrest, imprisonment, beating, rape, torture, execution or ethnic cleansing based on belief in a contrary religious practice. This persecution can extend to confiscation and/or destruction of property, or incitement to hate."

I agree that this is a sensible definition, but it's not the one being used in the other two articles. There, "persecution" is taken to include Wiccans feeling slightly hard done by in Canada. So we need to agree on a definition that applies to all three.

Secondly, there is a contemporary section in the other two, but not this one. The other two were not well written and almost entirely unsourced. I've deleted the Judaism one (though others keep reverting back to it), and I deleted the Christian one, but others put it back, though it's now massively reduced and is getting better sources. However, again, I'd say either there should be a contemporary section in all three, or in none, and I'd prefer not to see one in this article, because it would be a POV magnet.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job by deleting the Christian and Judaism ones. Islam is the only religion that presecute others. Don't worry about being POV. It is the case for most articles about Islam.

Also, the article "Historical persecution by Christians" is the proper place for the following sentence: "The crime of blasphemy was also punishable by execution in several Christian nations during Christianity's first 1500 years, most notably during the time of the Inquisition, although modern mainstream Christianity considers this a violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ." I've removed it from this article unless it's going to become part of a broader discussion comparing and contrasting persecution perpetrated in the name of varying religions. 12/5/05

[edit] Current persecutions?

I have been looking for any article with "current persections" or "current religious persecutions" or "current persections by/of <insert fav religion here>", but I must have missed them. Could anyone direct me? Relating to the text above, it seems reasonable to separate historical from current. The current persecutions are a nightmare in themselves without having to complicate them. DanielDemaret 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of what was said in the article. It is unfair to Muslims that you consider what some mad people do related to Islam , they only claim to be related to it. Muslims were presecuted in Mecca in the early days of Islam , their money and property were taken and they were physically tortured and not the opposite , until they had to leave to Madinna .

Link here about bahais under iranian rule http://www.iranian.com/IqbalLatif/2006/May/Bahai/index.html hope that helps.Hypnosadist 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] add tags

it seems clear per the above discussion(s) and the constant reverting as seen in the edit history that there are problematic areas within this article. proceed to discuss and justify the relevant changes here. until the dispute is resolved, a POV tag will be inserted. also the issue of citation needs to be addressed, as the state of the article at this present moment is pretty poor. that the article uses virtually no inline citations is pretty much asking for OR, and blatant examples of it litter the entire article. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

just some quick points:

• on what basis is the Meccan period subsection included in an article about persecution by Muslims? numerous reliable, citable sources suggest it was Muslims who were the ones to be persecuted. the OR expounding upon meccan verses exuding tolerance does not deserve inclusion until a source is cited.

• the second section is again irrelevant, no persecution is even mentioned therein. the second paragraph is ridiculous OR, and factually incorrect. the institution of dhimma had not yet been established (until after perhaps the conquest of khaybar, post expulsion of qaynuqa et al.) as noted by Watt and others. ITAQALLAH 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How many sources in this article actually say that the events described are actually persecutions?Bless sins 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)