Talk:Tunisian Muslim says apologise to Baha'is
Muslims, by contrast, considered themselves always the victims, their violence always Holy War and their dead men always martyrs.
smacks of racism, drawing the rest of the claims in the article into dispute this article needs alot of work before published seeing it could offended alot of people with false claims --Whywhywhy 11:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Looks to me as if this is a quote by Al-Gharbi. But that should probably be made clearer. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Amended - I hope it's clearer now. AndrewRT 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
i dont think it really matters if its quoted. its racism--Whywhywhy 11:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is a quote by al-Gharbi who is herself a Muslim. People are entitled to criticise their own religion without being branded racists.
- The point of this article is to be relevant to the category "Baha'i". Baha'is - who have been consistently persecuted by Muslims throughout the world and through most of their history are very interested to see an example of a Muslim standing up and saying "I think Muslims should apologise to Baha'is". Would you feel more comfortable if this story was published with a "Local only tag"? AndrewRT 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
iv made some adjustments and i feel the article is now ready to be read by anyone and probably most should read it, no local tag thanks--Whywhywhy 07:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
is it just me is their a remarkable trend of Institute's that are not related to scientic endvours churning out political retric--Whywhywhy 11:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Middle East Media Research Institute,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute reads(al though :The neutrality of this article is disputed.): it is aligned with the goals of Israel's Likud party and that it attempts to influence public policy in North America and Europe by presenting a distorted and highly selective view of Arab media. MEMRI's president Carmon maintains that "MEMRI is totally unaffiliated with any government, and receives no government funding. While I was formerly an Israeli official (and retired more than a decade ago), I have never been affiliated with the Likud Party, or any other party http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=4047
- I noticed that when I was writing the article and wondered if what appears to be such an obviously biased source could be relied upon. However MEMRI is not the original source of the story - this is the Italian webite. They are simply quoting what they have read and translated. For this reason I thought it was ok to use MEMRI but also worth quoting them as a source as they give a translation AndrewRT 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom "Annual Report 2005". United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, May 2, 2005--Whywhywhy 11:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC) possible dummy evidence
- Thanks for pointing out the broken link - I've changed it so that it now works. You're right to insist that stories are supported by sources but why are you so quick to question my integrity? You're pretty much accusing me of lying! AndrewRT 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
non english source
Dr Iqbal Gharbi "Where are the Arabs in this time of forgiveness? (Italian)". Arabiliberali.it, October 24, 2005 how can it be verified on a english based website with out a bad translation fro bable fish that can change the context of a sentence with one wrong word? --Whywhywhy 11:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well what do you suggest I do? The MEMRI article gives an English translation. Most people reading wikinews can't read Italian so I posted a basic translation of the Italian article. The header also gives a pointer to the original article in Italian so that way readers get the best of both worlds. If you think that any words have been mistranslated then let me know, but otherwise I don't see any alternative. Unless you're suggesting that non-English sources should be banned from wikinews? AndrewRT 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Non-english sources have been used before without complaint as long as there is other sources in english. I don't see this as a problem. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Forum 18 "Archive of article on Baha'i Faith". Forum 18, November 16, 2005 god ;) we have the full gamit here --Whywhywhy 11:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Seems I haven't done too well here on my first article!! :) I'll try to sort out all these links that seem to have problems.
- Don't worry, the only problem I see is a couple bad links, and one unclear quote. thats pretty minnor. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed the link to the article itself and put the link to the archive in a "see also" link AndrewRT 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
... thanks for something I don't yet understand, but want too, which is why I keep reading. -Edbrown05 03:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Contrast between group and individual actions
There has been a subtle change in meaning over the last few edits which I'm not sure is entirely accurate.
In the west the focus tends to be on individual people's actions, and the results of these actions on other individuals. The article is now written to imply that individual Muslims should apologise for the suffering they, personally, have inflicted on other individual Baha'is.
I'm not sure this is what was intended. When the Pope apologised on behalf of the Catholic Church for the persecution of galileo he wasn't apologising for anything he, as an individual, had done. He apologised on behalf of the entire community for something that had been done by the same community many centuries previously. The same is the case when people today apologise for the historical injustice of slavery, racism or discrimination.
This concept of group or community responsibility is perhaps easier to understand from an Arab perspective (for example) than from a western perspective.
The way I understood it the academic was calling on the Muslim community, as a group, to apologise for the suffering they, as a group, had inflicted on Baha'is, as a group and others. Presumably this would include the massacres of the 1850s which no individual alive today could be considered responsible for.
I appreciate that some westerners today think that group responsibility is a bad thing - even racism. It is wrong to hold against someone something that others have done, even if tehy are in the same community. However, in this case it was an Arab Muslim addressing an Arab Muslim audience and I think we should reflect these cultural norms.
I would like to change the article back to properly reflect this. Any comments? AndrewRT 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
so who's this one person thats going to appolise for all the muslims ? the way the article is now seems to be fine.--Whywhywhy 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)