Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

'feel themselves subdued' (Sura 9:29)

I know this has been discussed before, but the YusufAli translation of sa:ghiru:na (the last word of Sura 9:29) as' feel themselves subdued' is just not right. It minimizes the force of the Arabic original' meaning, which is 'humbled, humiliated, belittled'. It means literally to make something tiny or feel tiny. It does NOT mean 'feel yourself subdued'. 'Subdue' means to overcome in a fight, not to make tiny. Aminz has pushed for the YusufAli translation, but it's wrong. Arberry, which is more objective, would be a better option. He just says 'humbled', which is about as neutral a translation in English as you can get for this. Because this verse carries so much weight of history, it should at least be given the dignity of a straightfoward translation, and not be moudled, softened and veiled by this poor translation.Eagleswings 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with eagleswings, the full range of translations should be shown.Hypnosadist 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage Edit Explanation

The simplest explanation for the ban against marriage of dhimmi men to muslum women is the religious taboo. It is well known that Islam provents this arrangement, and intermarriage has allways been a touchy subject for most societies until very recent times (look at instances of lynching in the american south for a parallel.)Now HONESTLY! What do you think would be going through a turkish peasant's head durring an anti Christian riot:

a)Women are slaves, and a dhimmi can't have a muslim slave, so lets get 'em!

b)They are after our women! Let's get 'em!

I don't care if this is a quote from your favorate scholar. Let's just use [Occam's razor} and a little common sense--Dr.Worm 05:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of those references need to me taken out, but I cannot decide which. I'm not really happy with this version, but it is better than the previous version.--Dr.Worm 06:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone reinserted the text I took out. In science, we have this saying that goes "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If you can find someone who will corroberate the importance of Friedmann's research to reprisals on dhimmi communities when one's women are threatened.--Dr.Worm 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This have been here for a while. You want to take it out ? why ? In any case work with othr editors to create consensus. Are you a researcher ? well here we only use what other publish not anyone original thoughts. Publish an article (else wehere) and you can quote it here. otherwise: no. Zeq 09:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the marriage prohibition is original research. It wouldn't make a very interesting article either, being that it is common knowledge. This slave buisness is such a weird claim, that I feel that adding it without cooberation from a second source is lacking of appropriate consideration for intellectual rigour.

As for original research, Friedmann's thesis is that over time the idea of Islamic exaltedness gained the upper hand as the decisive factor in the determination of the law (IMO true). I think you really have to take his research out of context to draw the conclusion stated in the old version of the wikipedia article. You make it seem that this weird position was dominant and accepted by a large number of people at one time.

Personally, my interest is in science, not religious history. I'm not remotely as worked up over this article as most of the frequent editors at this page. However, this is such an obvious mistake I can't let it pass.--Dr.Worm 17:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Worm based on my experience of this article, simply any change that is not against Muslims will not be acceptable in this article. If you would like to have your changes than we need to have more head count than them. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. Hence we should collect more people that do not like the current state of this article. I am going to support your change by reverting back to your version, even though I know that it would be reverted by those people. I also think that marriage section is bad see my comment above under section Talk:Dhimmi#The_Worst_Article. But I am as helpless to change it as you are. --- Faisal 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Other than a declaration of "edit war" and the argument that "don't like it" I have seen no explnation to why you want to remove the sourced info. Zeq 14:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannot you go to Talk:Dhimmi#The_Worst_Article and read it? I had mention there that link to support that why I do not like it. How can you miss reading it and post above comment? --- Faisal 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your tone. I did read it and saw there more steps that were described as not appropriate by other editors. Do you really think this is a war in which he who has the largest army of editors win ? If so you need to learn more about how wikipedia works and what it is WP:not. Zeq 14:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please first watch your own tone. You said

Other than a declaration of "edit war" and the argument that "don't like it" I have seen no explnation to why you want to remove the sourced info.

which was inappropriate. I do not think it is war, when did I said that? However, edits of majority stays. The article will remain one sided until there is not a majority of neutral minded people. --- Faisal 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments indeed read like a declaration of an edit war, and every next of them only reinforces this impression. Instead of using reliable sources, avoiding original research, and seeking consensus, you want to gather a "majority of neutral minded people", i.e. people who share your POV in order to overpower everybody else in an edit war. This is not the way Wikipedia works, and I strongly advise you never to resort to this sort of action. Pecher ^Talk 16:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On controversial topics in Islam, muslims will never or are at least the least likely to have a "neutral mind", this is demonstrated by the vast majority of Islamic articles and related discussions on wikipedia. IMO it's that simple, the important thing is muslims recognise their inherent bias and how it acts against the neutrality of articles.

The best way to achieve neutrality is to avoid haivng to many of these inherently biased people contributing to the article and creation of a muslim guild to act as a rallying call toward muslims to sway articles toward an islamic perspective is compeltely contrary to this ideal and is very irresponsible. JHJPDJKDKHI! 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I am sure that there are mulsims who can set aside their idology and edit neutraly, even in places when the truth about Islam is not something they wish to spread widely on the web. I understand that their religious duty prevent them from changing what the Quran sais (even when it is not suitable to the 21st century democratic ideas) but I hope they will aat least be able to describe these aspects of Islam ina neutral way. Zeq 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I hope Faisal will become one of those editors who can indeed edit neutraly instead of just gathering enough muscle to force his view in the name of "Neutrality" Zeq 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.Worm's point, if I'm understanding it correctly, that the real reason for the ban is human psychology, not the logic of Islamic jurisprudence. Ideally, we could find a reputable source which supports it, in keeping with the high standards of this article.

However, as the paragraph begins "Islamic jurists reject...", the standpoint of jurisprudence is topical. It does not say "The majority of Muslims believe..."

Moreover, it is attributed to a reputable acdemic source, while the alternative paragraph links to Islam Online, Beliefnet and the like. If you believe Friedmann's theory to be misrepresented, we should discuss how, not replace the alleged misrepresentation with these dubious links. Timothy Usher18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I never liked those links. I think Percher did a better job explaining the situation than I did.--Dr.Worm 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher said: the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband.. Without any references. How can you do that? Please stop spreading such things. Pleaseeeee. --- Faisal 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Percher is correct and fair in that statement. Of corse, we are only talking about scholars in premodern times, and that statement might not ring universally true today.--Dr.Worm 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not me who said it, but a reputable scholar, and the reference is right there, so please stop making misleading comments. Pecher ^Talk 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not have those reputed scholars books infront of me, otherwise I would verify that edit. However, this is not an consensus opinion. Neither any of the Quranic verse you have quoted there indicate it. If it is consensus opinion of Muslim religious scholars (not western scholars) then give some reference related to Muslim scholars. --- Faisal 20:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem your problem is with WP:V, rather than with this article. You cannot say that these don't count because they are western scholars, rather than Muslim religious scholars. Secondly, while you may be right that this is not the consensus opinion (how should I know?), we unfortunately cannot cite you as a source.

Is this the reason for the disputed tag?Timothy Usher 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To the above anon. post, as I read the section before, it was wrong. However the recent rewrite made the section acceptable. My assertion that it is common knowledge that this slavery argument was not the prima facie cause of the prohabition is common knowledge is proved correct by the fact that Al-Mawardi, Friedmann, Lewis, and Bat Ye'or agree with my internet sources. Generally, if you can find an unreferenced fact in more than 3 sources it can be considered common knowledge. I also included a reference to a peer reviewed journal, which you might have overlooked. If you want to make an assertion that is against common knowledge (which is how I understood the section before), then you need to provide some very good evidence; i.e. one verifiable quote from a flat-earther book would not be enough to disprove the prevailing scientific opinion that the earth is round. I was never happy with the sources I found, but what I wrote was correct. Thanks again to whomever rewrote it.--Dr.Worm 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I once again encourage you to read WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank whomever rewrote this section. The "Islamic jurists reject the possibility..." section is clearer than what I wrote, and the references are clearer. My problem has allways been with the "As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement" section. Before, it made it look as if Islam equated the status of women with slaves (which, is a slight overstatement), and that this was the prima facie cause of the prohibition. Now, with the preceding information I think that the main cause of the prohibition is understood and the enslavement section can be understood as anology.

Now, I have only few very very minor points and edits. It still sounds a little choppy when I read it, and I think that there is one run-on sentence. I trust no one will object if the content remains unchanged. Also, the stoning punishment should be moved closer to the comment saying that the punishment was often death. I trust no one will object if the content remains unchanged. The "AS SOME MUSLIM SCHOLARS PUT IT" wording is icky. It certainly isn't bad enough for me to remove it, but maybe someone who has a copy of the source left over from some college class will find out exactly whom these people are? I would appreciate it if someone would save me another schlep to the library.--Dr.Worm 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. my last point. The jurisprudence refers to non-muslims (inclusive of non dhimmi people like pagans). Dhimmis are a sub section of this group, not the other way arround.

OOPS! I was wrong! That is only true at the begining of dhimmi history. I've tried to replace "non-muslim" with "dhimmi". That source that the punishnemt is death by stoning is still in there. I havent taken anything out that wan't repetitious! --Dr.Worm 05:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The real reason why mulsim women can not marry non mulsim men

Islam orgininated in tribal society where women become property of the husband and join the husband tribe. To this day many Mulsim Hamula's have a tradition in which they take women from the outside (and usually have to pay for them) but they refuse to let their women marry outside the hamula (clan/tribe). In this way they ensure the grouth of the hamulla. This is a logical step to any group who wants self preservation and have the resources to "buy/import" more women. Zeq 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there is some merit in what you say. It is probibly a factor.--Dr.Worm 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The worst article -- Concences opoinion

The whole article has mistakes but for now lets talk about marriage section. The article says in marriage section: Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non-Muslim) may marry a Muslim woman.[99] Based on the Quranic verses 2:221, 60:10, and 5:5, the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband.

I do not know if the consensus is amoung Muslim scholars or Western scholars or all of them. First, the Quranic verses had nothing to do what the conclusion made there (you are using them). A reader like me after reading above paragraph will assume that this concences in among Muslim community/scholars because the article start from saying

A dhimmi is a free non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia

hence, it should be Islam view/stand. However believe me there is no such concences exist between Muslim scholars. If you think there is then Please give proper references and mention who have this consensus (Muslim/westerns or who). --- Faisal 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"believe me there is no such concences exist between Muslim scholars" is just your original research, while reliable sources say otherwise. Faisal, I once again urge you to read the policies that are the cornerstones of Wikipedia, and please refrain from editing articles before you read these policies. Pecher ^Talk 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fasil. I think that is is not allowed for a Muslim women to marry a non-muslum. I think you will need to offer an opposing hypothesis before any one will consider making a change. This is a link to a q&a forum where the imam says it is not allowed. (However, no reasoning is given.)

http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=fnjOy

I never said marriages between muslim women and muslim men is allowed. I was only against the reason given obove and said that that reason is a consensus opinion. My main objection is using word consensus. It is even not told that the consensus is among whome? Here is the reason given at Islam online [1]. Having consensus on something related to Islam is suppose to be really big thing. He has establish a consensus without proper referencing and no even telling that what group of people has this consensus. Is the consensus is among both Muslims and non-muslims scholars? or what? --- Faisal 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is allways better to use a more specific words.--Dr.Worm 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Deleted" information replaced

Someone seems to think that the loss of this sentence "Violations of it, including a sexual relationship between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, being punishable by death.[4]" causes some loss of information from the article. So I have put this sourced information back into the paragraph. I still think it looks stupid, but I can compromise.

Reverted. There was no loss of information, the changes you made mangled the paragraph. First, if 'marriage is like enslavement', that directly implies 'with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave'. Changing the latter clause to 'with wife being subservient to the husband' is both ungrammatical and logically incorrect (edit: it's still logical, but just less precise GIVEN enslavement was already said). Second, you took a perfectly good sentence outlining what was punishable by death, then split it in two, and then duplicate 'punishable by death', leaving the second sentence as a fragment...? - Merzbow 06:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Merzbow. I am just happy that someone took the time to talk to me about why they reverted the paragraph. Since I have you to discuss this with, I won't make any changes until you have been given time to respond. I just thought 'with wife being subservient to the husband' seemed more elligant and the same as what was said. If you like the original wording better, then I will respect your opinion. I think that sentence though is a comma splice. I placed that disgusting "Violations of it, including a sexual relationship between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, (were) punishable by death.[102]" sentence in because people were accusing me of removing information, so I tried to put the admittedly reduntent information back in. What do you think of this sentence:

Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non-Muslim) may marry a Muslim woman.[99] Based on the Quranic verses 2:221, 60:10, and 5:5, the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. As dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the People of the Book because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.[100] Touching a sensitive point of the Muslim psyche, this prohibition was enforced with the utmost rigor.[101] Violations of the ban or sexual relationships between non-Muslim men and a Muslim women, were punishable by death.[102] All schools of Sunni jurisprudence, with the exception of Hanafi, extend upon dhimmis the stoning to death applied to Muslim spouses who commit adultery.[104] In cases when a non-Muslim wife converts to Islam, while her non-Muslim husband does not, their marriage would be annulled.[103]

Please give me your opinion on the second to the last sentence. "Muslim spouses who commit adultery" does not serve any purpose in the sentence as written. Either it must be only "..extend upon dhimmis death by stoning." This is a simple statement of fact uncluttered by the reference to infadelity. Alternatively, it can "...extend upon dhimmis the same punishment as Muslim spouses who commit adultery, death by stoning." I think this implies that the reasoning behind the stoning punishment was it was equated with adultery. IMO, the second version is more informative, if it is true (I can't check myself the context, my library doesn't have a section on 10th century islamic jurist.) It would be nice if the person tho added this reference could post the material he quoted from.--Dr.Worm 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the grammar in that sentence can be made more clear. How about "...extend upon dhimmis the same punishment as Muslim spouses who commit adultery, which is death by stoning". I added the 'which'. But note that the version of the paragraph you quote above is not the current version. - Merzbow 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You restored most of the mangled changes, I'm not sure why. You did make an attempt to clear up part of the 'death by stoning' passage; I improved on that, but had to revert the other changes. The references for the information in the first half of the paragraph are clearly given. Although I don't have those books, certainly whoever put this information in the article originally did. So unless you also have the same books and can claim that the original contributor is misinterpreting or misquoting the relevant passages, then I don't see your changes are being justified. - Merzbow 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to appologize. I had two windows open, and I became confused on what I was working on. I really only wanted to remove the parenthesis change non-muslim to dhimmi in all occurences. It was a mistake and I hope you don't feel slighted by it. The paragraph I posted were my suggested changes, not the current version.--Dr.Worm 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm still a bit confused about what I did. Maybe I put my proposed changes in the article insead of in the edit area. I'm not used to making large edits... Appologies to everyone.--Dr.Worm 21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Resource -- Islamonline

Are all the websites unreliable resource or only the one associated with terrorist, personal-website, log website etc. Read WP:RS. I know that it is recomended to use books instead of website. Books are good. However, using website is allowed when some scholar write there. The website Islamonline is NOT a personal-website, logs-website, terroist-website, associated with some organization. The website aim is following

Global presentation: Addressing humanity; avoiding ties with or speaking for any country, party, group, council, or organization. Comprehensive content: Presenting a whole and complementary image of Islam in the information and service pages. Balanced approach: Adopting the middle ground of Islam, avoiding extremism or negligence, rejecting deviant or strange opinions. Objective treatment: Striving for scientific accuracy, adopting neutrality and avoiding pre-judgments. Moral approach: Avoiding slander or praise of individuals, groups or states, avoiding propagandist and sensational methods, or provocation and incitement. Pleasant presentation: Ensuring that all contents are displayed professionally and enjoyably.

Usually a good scholar write and answer question there. Why one cannot say Scholar ABC says on islamonline [islamonline reference]? I will contact with wiki-administators and will find out wikipedia stand about it. --- Faisal 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that a website should be admissiable if the content is written by professionals. One should be concious of the fact that interpretations may change over time. If one wanted to contend that the present view has changed from a historic view, one would have to post doccumentation of the histoic view for the consideration of all editors.--Dr.Worm 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisil you are contacting wikipedia by posting it here.. JHJPDJKDKHI! 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS accepts reliable websites - even unreliable ones under certain provisions that don't apply here. However, islamonline does not qualify as reliable, as quite large a number of editors are anonymous, others that are named have questionable or no qualification at all. Even self avowed Islamists and open supporters of terrorism like David Myatt voice their opinion and present themselves on that site, cf. Talk:David_Myatt/archive1 for some details. While there's nothing wrong with that in terms of free speech, it doesn't add to a claimed reputation of scholarly source at all. Some non-anonymous scholars on islamonline give info on their academic credentials and received peer review - arguably, you may cite those. However, there is a wealth of universitarian websites and written sources -publications by al Azhar scholars come to mind- that you can use. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is islamonline's maintainer and studied in al Azhar. He publishes extensively: no need to rely on the forum he provides for anyone willing to contribute. --tickle me 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I use the fatwah section of islam-online alot durring my researchs. As Dr.Worm and Tickle me say the named scholars of that section can be sourced and are of repute, but there are many forum posts, and articals written as more a magazine than a text book. It is a matter of noting which is which as Ibrahimfaisal says quoting a known schollar who is using islamonline as a media to reach more people, it does not invalidate the academic value of thier words. On a "political" note, islamonline is in my opinion a centerist site in terms of between western/moderate and fundamentalist/old school.Hypnosadist 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What's unscholarly about it is, the fatwas (such as this one) are generally given as prescriptive opinions, like an Islamic advice column, with no discussion of jurisprudence or citation of sources in the manner of a legal finding or an academic paper.Timothy Usher 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the opoinions. See following:

For example, Sir Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century, in his "Call to Islam" has argued: -

This tax (jizya) was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that ‘the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.[2]

This kind of many things are reverted by Pecher (see [3]) with comments that islamonline is not accepted. He continue humilating me saying that read WP:RR. I will contact with many administrators about this issue and will REVERT THE CHANGES OF PECHER if the decision is in my favor. If he or anyone revert that change once again (saying islamonline is not reliable) then I will report that to the administators. --- Faisal 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note:

IslamOnline IS a reliable source. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Islamonline_IS_a_Reliable_Source

--Aminz 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in isolated cases, but not in general, and certainly not in preference to properly published sources. - Merzbow 17:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As you said, if we have a properly published source saying the same thing as Islam Online says, it is preferable to use that source. But if such a source isn't presented here, we "can" quote IslamOnline. --Aminz 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

motga5

It seems that the writer of that article do not understand the dhimi law at all. To understand it you should know that in Islam a muslim must give money in charity to the other poor people in the state. This charity is called zakkahand it was collected in these times by the government itself. And as the ruler can not impose an islamic belief on non-muslims living in the islamic state, and also as they have to pay for the civil services provided by the state to the people of the county; so the muslim rulers forged the dhimi law and the tribute that non-muslims should pay to the government. So this tribute is like modern taxes. Muslims pay the taxes in the form of Zakkah and non-muslims pay the taxes in the form of Dhimi Tribute.I think this is the ultimate justice.motga5 29.05.2006

Again the writer of the article says that Dhimmis were allowed to retain their religion and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and accepting Muslim supremacy, which involved various restrictions and legal disabilities placed on them, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims, and the requirement to wear distinctive clothing.[4] Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs what are legal disabilities you talk about? any government now impose the law of bearing arms on all its citizens, and muslim empire was the same. Also how can a christian or Jewish give testmonial in an Islamic court run by Shari'a (Islamic Law)while he/she does not know anything about this law. Also these distinctive clothes were wear by them according to their will. Every religion had its clothing and its followers were proud of it, so they were free to dress it. That's a point in favor of the Islamic rule, not against it. People were totally free to practice their religion to the extent to wear their religious clothes in the streets. The contrary is happenenig now in the European countries, didn't you read the new French law that forbid religious clothes in Public places? The conditions of the dhimma resulted in a gradual acceptance of Islam by most Middle Eastern Christians and Zoroastrians living under the Muslim rule, as well as in the Arabization of Christians. Most Zoroastrians converted rather rapidly, while the conversion of Christians took many centuries. In some places, like the Maghreb, Central Asia, and southern Arabia, Christianity died out completely. Many Jews accepted Islam as well, but Judaism on the whole survived throughout Islamic lands. Although forced conversions also played a role, the key motive for conversion was the need to escape oppressive taxation and social inferiority It seems that the writer of this article is only writing out of individual opinion. How can you say that a Christian or a Jewish converted to Islam because of the bad conditions he suffered in the Islamic countries. If he did that, so he/she is a weak person and does not deserve to be a believer in the Almighy God, whether through Judaism, Christianity or Islam. On the contrary, it is the wellfare and the good treatment they found under the rule of Islam that made them convert to Islam. If the man leaves his religion because of mistreatment, so all the Christains and Jewish under the rule of Romans should have converted to the worship of Idols with the severe tortures they were facing. Think over it again and write it back before twisting the minds of the readers. motga5 29.05.2006

Hello Motga5 - no the jizya was never a tax 'to pay for civil services'! Motga5 is confusing a modern democratic society with the medieval caliphate! The jizya tribute was paid solely for the benefit of Muslims - early Islamic sources desribe the (sometimes huge) pensions paid to Muslim occupiers out of the jizya monies - none was paid to the dhimmis. On the other hand the zakat was not used for the benefit of poor dhimmis, but only for Muslims. The dhimmi communities had to support their own poor. I encourage Motga5 to read the writings of those who have investigated these issues, or else read the original Islamic sources, which will confirm what I have said. The same goes for the comments given below. 220.235.228.7 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have any impact on this article then you need to join me. Otherwise this article and many other Islamic articles will become propaganda against Islam. They have changed this article and now they are doing same with jizya article. All of my effort to convince them for having some positive change in the article is wasted. I spend many hours of my life discussing with them on talk page. However, they do not listen. They do not want to listen. They reverted all changes of me stating wrong reasons. The only way to make the article neutral is to have number neutral people working together. So I hope to listen from you. --- Faisal 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Motga5 first of all hello and welcome to wikipedia. Second i'd like to critique your comments above, and lets start with what we both agree on and that is Zakkah is charity a good muslim Should give for the benifit of the poor. Jizya is a Tax that non-muslims are forced to pay with the full weight of the law, it is not in the religion its in yours. Saying as you Motga5 do that "Muslims pay the taxes in the form of Zakkah and non-muslims pay the taxes in the form of Dhimi Tribute" shows that these concepts are the same but notice that zakkah is now discribed as a tax. It is not, its a volentary religious obligations that muslims Choose to take on. See the debate on talk/jizha for more on this.

Now we'll move on to the denial of testomy in dhimmi law, your defence for this is its ok to do this to the non-muslims because they could not understand the charges, process and/or Law itself. I hardly know where to start on this one so 1) This ban stops any non-muslim giving testomy in a sharia court not working as a judge on a case. 2)This ban means that the voice of all non-muslims is silent in sharia law courts, that they are non-people who the legal system does not see as existing, so therefor you have no rights at all as the courts will not see you to uphold them. 3) Here's the disability for you, imagine that this morning a bunch of US Marines broke into your house and beat you badly and after you get patched up at the hospital you go to your local police station. You try and report this crime but there has been a coup! And the CIA run the police now! And they say that due to the War on Terror the USA and its dominions do not accept Muslim testimony anymore. So nothing happened to you they say, But it did.Motga5 where is the legal disability now?

The distinctive clothing i know nothing about except about the modern french ban, which is a ban in schools ONLY not all public places. You may be getting mixed up with the possible/proposed(?) Burka ban in Holland i know its not a law yet but do not know if it was thrown out or what.

Now on to how the discrimitory laws and taxation(with-out representation) ground down the non-muslim cultures under occupation, well this is big one, first have a look at Stockholm Syndrome. Then have a look at Jim crow laws. Now you have to take into consideration the facts on the ground ie; that the communities that were there are not now or are very small. Yes many converted willingly, many didn't, what percentage is which is which i don't know and no-one does, what is important is that the dhimmi laws played a part (some believe by specific design) it the success of the spread of islam. Saying oh if the gave up there faith there bad people (who de-facto don't get rights, which is a scary as hell thought to me) and christianity survived dispite persecution, So WHAT! Also on ground of factual accuracy the roman did not persicute the constantly and Christianity was beyond romes boarders by 100ad anyway.

Finally Ibrahimfaisal please stop calling for Holy Edit War, it is very anti-wikipedian.Hypnosadist 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I use to love this place before I found this article (and few others like this). Hence, this article is much more anti-wikipedian then anything else could be. Look what the changes have been made in the jizya article, in the last 3/4 days. The neutral jizya article is now waiting for a new dispute. CHECK THIS. Furthermore, the Dhimmi article make concrete conclusion even in the introduction. What a neutral stance. -- Faisal 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guide to make an article disputed and NON-NEUTRAL

Step 1) Check if a section on Criticism already written.

Step 2) Rename that section to Humiliating nature

Step 3) Remove any defensive point mention in that section so that it could be totally one sided. For example see same thing happened to Jizya article in last few days. CHECK THIS.

Step 4) (may be executed in future) Now changing the introduction is easy. Hence change the intro with one sided material.

The article is ready.. Please do not let anyone revert it back. --- Faisal 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If there was a productive purpose served by your latest post, it escapes me. - Merzbow 05:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow and Ibrahimfaisal any answer to my points raised above? Anything?Hypnosadist 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That means above thing have been done with jizya article, in the last week or so. They are making it similar to Dhimmi and ending its neutrality. Why it is difficult to understand? --- Faisal 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i understand you don't like the way jizya and dhimmi are writen. Complain about jizya artical on its talk page. Now Motga5 raised complaints about the artical and i rebutted them, i'm asking if you have any counter arguments or are you going to admit the nature of dhimmi (and by default jizya and other such discriminations).Hypnosadist 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions and read your argument first I have to know that your intensions are good and you are a fair person (not biased towards Islam). I am not saying that you are but generally I am getting really hard time these days with this part of thinking. I have given very fair answers to many people and still unable to convince them. My believes on human beings are getting shaky. I used to believe that everyone is good/fair person and we have different view only because we have different set of knowledge. But now I have to rethink about my views. I have told people that see a paragraph #-abc had obvious mistake that everyone can see. They do not listen. Now tell me why I should answer you when I am not sure about you in the first place? Should not it be waste of my time and more frustration for me? --- Faisal 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, your comment above is a personal attack and failure to assume good faith. You may want to reconsider your approach to editing and talking to other editors. Pecher ^Talk 11:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher I have not made any personal attack and it is a general view. If you think it is a personal attack then report me Please. --- Faisal 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello people, for one thing i would like to say what ibrahimfaisal said to me above was NOT a personal attack, thanks for caring pecher but i'll ask for back-up if need it. Next would ALL people please answer my questions rather than snipeing at each other, Please. Ibrahimfaisal i have no intension in being judged morally in order to debate, post or don't. To your point about the introduction, it is the work of two of the most influential scholars in the area, i'd look for commentators of similar authority who either dispute the effect(or extent of) these laws had on the population they were forced on. Saying that they did not have this effect is your opinion based on your POV, prove it with sourced arguements.Hypnosadist 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi was abolished? When and by whom, and on what authority?

The intro has a line i feel is factually inaccurate and that is "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India between the 7th century, when dhimma was first introduced, and the mid-19th — early 20th century, when the dhimma was abolished.". As i say above When and by Whom, and on What authority? My idea is its going to be the British Empire defeating the Ottoman Empire in WW1 and just after that "abolished" dhimmi, but lets see what better minds think. If you go to Islamonline and search for dhimmi you get thousands of hits, in the fatwah bank 3639 entries, the cyber cousilor has 2556 and live fatwah has a small number of 822. As i have been saying for weeks dhimmi is not a historical concept its alive and well and deciding how Muslims live there lives. I'm going to deleate this line tomorrow unless a discusion to find a concensus on this is started.Hypnosadist 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one thing I'm unsure about also, but this claim appears to be sourced, so I don't see any justification for deleting it unless you can show that it in fact does not appear in the referenced sources. Countries like Saudi Arabia are certainly enforcing some of the dhimma restrictions, but I don't think they are actually claiming their non-Muslim citizens are dhimmis. Again, the best way to improve this article is by adding sourced POVs, not by deleting. - Merzbow 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimma was abolished in the 19th and early 20th century, either through Westernizing reforms, like Tanzimat, or through Western colonization; only in Yemen did dhimma last until the Jews fled to Israel at about 1950. Technically, religious minorities in Muslim countries are not dhimmis nowadays, even though they usually suffer discrimination. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has no non-Muslim citizens at all, only non-Muslim guest workers, and the latter don't count as dhimmis, who are by definition subjects of a Muslim state. Pecher ^Talk 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortly before the invasion, the taliban had talked about making non-muslims wear distinctive clothing. Perhapse there are also nations out there today that restrict intermarriage. One might ba able to make a case of dhimmi laws influencing modern laws, if properly researched. But are there modern people who are treated like the dhimmis of the ottoman empire? I don't know... I'm worried that if you broaden the use of the term dhimmi too much it looses meaning.--Dr.Worm 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely, the impact of dhimmi laws on the legislation in modern Muslim countries could make an interesting new section. Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First let me say i'm not going to delete this as we are no having the disscusion to reach a concensus. Second some one who has the Lewis book in question check if it does say if dhimmi was abolished and When and by whom, and on what authority? As the intro is full of claims of knowledge that the references could refer to. Third is the question of how much dhimmi is dhimmi, ie how much do you have to enforce to be counted as implamenting dhimmi? Forth is if the concept is used in islamic scholarly circles in order to form modern fatwah's then is that enough to say its still around today? Two more points and that that of course no islamic Government imposes dhimmi rules as restrictive as the ottoman empire at the height of its power, but see my third question. And i think a section on dhimmi in the modern era is very important for this artical.Hypnosadist 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That would make a great new section. We can discuss how most Muslim-majority states don't implement Sharia with consistency, how this benefits non-Muslims, how Islamists are re-implementing Sharia on a local level and calling for it on a national level, and how this impacts non-Muslims.Timothy Usher 07:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is no Islamic state and Sharia is not implemented any where in the world. Most Muslim believe that true Cahilpate is ended after the Rashidun. --- Faisal 07:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The true Caliphate wouldn't be content with taxing and humiliating Dhimmi, but would behead them, seize their properties and enslave their women and children, as did Muhammad, or expel them as did Umar.Timothy Usher 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to write the article using good references and till Rashidun then it would be great. And I will highly appreciate it. However, if you would decide to do that then avoid using someone who is famously known as extremly biased in whole islamic world like Bernard Lewis. It is easy to just say anything without references like you have done above. I consider it a personal attack on me and my religion. Please avoid doing that in the future as you might know that there is wikipedia policy against it. --- Faisal 07:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, you may want to start an Islamopedia, where you will be able to push your ahistorical POV that the article "Dhimmi" must not extend beyond Rashidun entirely unopposed. This is, however, Wikipedia, a secular encyclopedia, where the policy on reliable sources applies, even if these sources say something you dislike. Pecher ^Talk 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher I advice you to understand Neutral_Point_of_View. Then you can write articles that have you POV and still I am satisified. For example see OBL article. I do not believe that he has to do anything with 9/11 but still I like that article a lot. Because it is written from neutral point of view. It is not helpful when you made conclusion in the introduction and do not let anyone else to contribute. I have contributed in many article but cannot do any contribution in this article because of you and you team. I know, I am wasting my time. but may be there is 0.000001% chance that you can understand what I said above. best wishes --- Faisal 07:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, you haven't made a single contribution to the article using reliable sources. Your talk page edits consist mainly of declarations of edit war, attempts to recruit other people to be on your side in the edit war that you are waging, and attacks aimed at those who disagree with you. From this evidence, I cannot see any value in your contributions to Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) please abide by WP:NPOV and WP:RS if you wish your edits to stand and refrain from edit warring, especially from trying to recruit other users for an edit war. Pecher ^Talk 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. --- Faisal 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Faisal Saying this "I am wasting my time. but may be there is 0.000001% chance that you can understand what I said above" imply your view on Pecher intelegnce and his ability to understand. That is a violation of WP:NPA. Zeq 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Imply to whereever you like. Imply it to XYZ and WFT. Pecher says that I cannot see any value in your contributions to Wikipedia. Also imply it to something. --- Faisal 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also imply this. Pecher said Faisal, you may want to start an Islamopedia, where you will be able to push your ahistorical POV --- Faisal 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Having seen your user page, I can see how a reasonable observer might arrive at that perception.Timothy Usher 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"History of Damascus" info is original research?

Pecher, you keep deleting information that somebody is trying to add that is sourced from a book called "History of Damascus" by Ibn Asaker. This appears to be a real book, so I'm puzzled why you consider it original research? - Merzbow 06:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's a real book in English, what are its ISBN, publisher, year etc? From what I know "History of Damascus" is a huge series in Arabic, but this is an English Wikipedia with plenty of English-language literature on the subject; I don't use any source in Russian or Ukrainian, do I? Secondly, I don't dispute that new converts fought in wars on the Arab side. However, the mere fact of their fighting sheds no light on the speed of conversion of Christains; obviously, some converted early, while most people did not. The material that the anon is trying to insert into the intro is thus entirely superfluous. Pecher ^Talk 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember the Rule: Every source which say thing not liked by them is an Orginal research. --- Faisal 13:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple points. First, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources explicitly states that non-English sources can be used in certain circumstances. Second, one could argue that sources of Middle Eastern origin are especially relevant to this subject (unlike Russian or Ukranian sources). That being said, the aforementioned page does imply that the bar is very high for directly referencing non-English sources. I invite the person who added this reference to provide more detailed information about this book - publisher, country of origin, etc. - and provide the original-language sentences and his translation (unless there is a published English-language translation that can be used). - Merzbow 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Last call for the word Abolished

I'm reposting my comments about the intro saying dhimmi was abolished. This is because it got drowned out in an argument that had Nothing to do with my question, so here we are again.

The intro has a line i feel is factually inaccurate and that is "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India between the 7th century, when dhimma was first introduced, and the mid-19th — early 20th century, when the dhimma was abolished.". As i say above When and by Whom, and on What authority? My idea is its going to be the British Empire defeating the Ottoman Empire in WW1 and just after that "abolished" dhimmi, but lets see what better minds think. If you go to Islamonline and search for dhimmi you get thousands of hits, in the fatwah bank 3639 entries, the cyber cousilor has 2556 and live fatwah has a small number of 822. As i have been saying for weeks dhimmi is not a historical concept its alive and well and deciding how Muslims live there lives.

First let me say this is about the word ABOLISHED not the fact that dhimmi rules stopped being enforced. If there was a religious ruleing to say that these laws where not to be enforced then they were ABOLISHED. That word contains some moral judgement in it as in the Abolision of Slavery or Death Penalty, ie things that we now know are bad. If on the other hand these laws like slavery were stopped by British force of arms then the artical should state that. The final option is that they were abolished by a secularish state but that this concept is still active in Modern Religious thought.

But the current wording leaves the reader with the opinion that this concept stopped at the end of the 19c, which it patently did not.Hypnosadist 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A concept told by Quran cannot be abolished. However, currently it is not implement anywhere because there is not Islamic state in the world and secondly, the propoganda presented by article like humilation of Dhimmi is misleading (so the concept is presented in a very wrong way). If you remove the word abolish then it will give impression that it will be restored the way it is presented in the article. Hence first correct the article then remove the abolish word. --- Faisal 18:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Hypnosadist that "abolished" here means that dhimmi laws stopped being enforced. This happened after a series of reforms, such as Tanzimat, usually conducted under severe European pressure, or after European colonization when non-Muslim subjects finally received equal status. Pecher ^Talk 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal there are many islamic states in the world, that you do not recognise thier claims of religious legitamacy is not relivent, please see No true scotsman. Second the humiliation section is now nearlly all quotes of legitamate and contempory scholars detailing practises of, or their interpratation of, sharia including notables like Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali. Are these jurist lying, mis-quoted or telling the truth about how jizya was collected?Hypnosadist 23:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There cannot be more than one Islamic state at a given time. It is against the definition of Islamic state. The Islamic state is govern by a Caliph and according to Muslims belief there cannot be two or more Caliphs. --- Faisal 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert it back as even you ibrahimfaisil admit that dhimmi has not been abolished so this MUST go as it is Unencyclopedic. Just because you don't like the artical the way it is now there is no need to Lie in it.Hypnosadist 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am against abolish word because a reader my infer that Dhimmi law are gone for ever. This is the fact that it will be implemented again when/if the Caliphate is restored. However, The change you have done is even more wrong than abolish word because it tells reader that it is still in practice (and in practice in the evil way descibed in the article). It is not in practice anywhere in the world. I will support better word than abolish but cannot support your current change. I will wait for your reply and then revert it back. --- Faisal 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We should be saying that Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because 1) most Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law, although Islamists would like them to be 2) In many regions, there are hardly any Dhimmi left. Would that work for you, Faisal?Timothy Usher 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

May be this time we have second agreement. I agree with first one (#1). Change it please. Thank you. --- Faisal 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We have ALL agreed the word abolished should go, its gone and staying gone. I understand your concerns about the article but they are your POV about how nice or not being a dhimmi is, or who has the authority to say who is dhimmi and how to enforced. But they are your POV and many people (Particularly many muslim's) disagree. Hypnosadist 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you are unable to read (or understand) my concern, I have posted above I am posting them again in bold. You keep saying my concern about article has nothing to do with oblish. Forget my concern about the article the word is still neccessary. I post my concern here again (from above). Yes, I am against abolish word because a reader my infer that Dhimmi law are gone for ever. This is the fact that it will be implemented again when/if the Caliphate is restored. However, The change you have done is even more wrong than abolish word because it tells reader that it is still in practice (and in practice in the evil way descibed in the article). It is not in practice anywhere in the world. I will support better word than abolish but cannot support your current change. I will wait for your reply and then revert it back. --- Faisal 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I hope you can read this time. It is not implemented any where hence the word abolish (or its improved form) will come back. --- Faisal 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for Repeating yourself in BOLD but my eye sight is fine and i read you the first time. Now to the matter at hand, you admit abolished is wrong then it must go, if you want to talk Timothy ushers wording i can go for

"Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because 1) most Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law, although Islamists would like them to be and the dhimmi rules enforced 2) In many regions,after hundreds of years of enforcement there are hardly any Dhimmi left."

This would accurately show the current situation and how it came about.Hypnosadist 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law. That much is enough. Other thing is just POV. --- Faisal 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, i'll change it now.Hypnosadist 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you. --- Faisal 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What you added was pure unsourced speculation, and thus I removed it. - Merzbow 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it pure speculation to notice a link between the demise of the Caliphate and the decline in the observance of Dhimma. But I agree it needs a source.Timothy Usher 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Onwords" that you have added is also pure unsourced speculation and also wrong. Onwords means it is still in place. Where is your reference for that? Hence it is better to have correct thing with {{Fact}} tag. Then uncorrect your version with no tag. Hence I am changing it back and puting {{Fact}} tag in front of it. Also we (Timithy, Hypnosadist and me) after days of talks here as well as on our User pages agreed on this change. After so much effort you come and change what we have agreed on. Why could not you be part of the talks earlier? --- Faisal 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "from the 7th century until modern times". This still needs to be sourced, but I cannot leave "Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law" because not only is that unsourced original research, it is egregiously wrong. Millions of Saudia Arabians would disagree that they are not living under Sharia law. - Merzbow 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that "mostly not active" isn't qualified, and isn't sourced. Of course Sharia law is implemented in several regions. "Mostly not" is relative to the Caliphates, which ruled much larger territories with many more Dhimmi. A specific and sourced description of the state of Dhimma in modern times would be desirable.Timothy Usher 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So you claim that Dhimmi is still active in Saudia. Any reference. Do they pay Jizya (in much more greater amount than Zikat)? I wish if you could talk for a while and try to convince other people. Instead you like to first change and then post a message. Stop following: I have done it and now here is a notification. --- Faisal 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

From the Saudi Arabia: "The central institution of Saudi Arabian Government is the Saudi monarchy. The Basic Law adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud, and that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a)... Legislation is by resolution of the Council of Ministers, ratified by royal decree, and must be compatible with the Shari'a (Islamic law)." - Merzbow 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason there's no Dhimma in SA (to my knowledge) is that Sharia has also been construed such that Jews and Christians may not permanently reside in the Arabian Penninsula.Timothy Usher 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No non-Muslim can enter is some specific cities like Medina. Even for a single day. However, there is lots of non-Muslims (even Americans) in Saudia. Anyway you agree that it is not applied there in SA (reason does not matter)? Obviously if Jizya is applied in any part of the world then CNN/BBC and other have lots of articles against that. Also so called Humman-rights organization should be publishing material on it. Google search does not show that articles like these exist. --- Faisal 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your opinion of these links?[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]Timothy Usher 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslims can live in Saudi Arabia - there are hundreds of thousands of Christians, for example - but they are not dhimmis, but guests. Not subjects of the state. This is a different category from the dhimmi. If there were dhimmis in Saudi Arabia they would be allow to build churches, but they cannot. The dhimma has not applied in Saudi Arabia since the expulsion of Jews and the conversion of the Christian Arab tribes to Islam in the years after the death of Muhammad. This was in accordance with the hadith - from Muhammad's deathbed - that there cannot be two religions in Arabia. The whole dhimma systesm was not completely abolished in the 19th and 20th century - dhimma regulations still influence the legal codes of many Islamic states - but the actually jizya tax system and formal distinction of dhimmis as a separate class of citizens was done away with by the Ottomans in the mid-19th century, under European pressure. In other places (e.g. Yemen) the dhimma lasted into the 20th century. Eagleswings 10:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from all the accounts I have seen that dhimmis could not build new Churches or even repair old ones. So it is unlikely that they could in Saudi Arabia - which does not allow non-Muslims to settle because of that whole "no two religion" thing, so if there were dhimmis in SA they would have to leave or become Muslims. The Ottomans did not do away with it - they renamed the jizyah and the Dhimmis went on paying it rather than being brutalised in the Turkish Army. Lao Wai 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That military exemption tax existed for some time, but subsequently was also abolished. Pecher ^Talk 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with Merzbows current edit "from the 7th century until modern times" with timothy's memri link [9] as the needed citation.Hypnosadist 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Bless sins, actually, Muhammad is not a reliable source on Islam, by wikipedia standards. The Qur'an is a reliable source for what it itself says, but beyond that, it's not fact-checked, peer-reviewed, etc., nor does its author have (or claim) academic expertise - in fact, he was said to have been illiterate. More to the point, as dhimma occured after Muhammad's death, there'd be no way for him to know what was going to happen, or to comment upon it. The Qur'an and Hadith are important here, but only insofar as Islamic jurists interpret them, and reliable sources tell us these jurists have done so based on such-and-such specific verses.Timothy Usher 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse Muhammad is a reliable source!! Whatever, he has said is the offical policy in Islam. To my knowlege NO branch of Islam (except one) disputes his authority. Also, Dhimma was the policy during Muhammad's time, else the quote I put in the article wouldn't have existed. Many verses and hadith do need interpreting but some (like the one I posted) are self-explanatory, and are infact quoted by scholars to support points.Bless sins 03:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, come take a look at Talk:Muhammad where I try to convince Timothy that he's on the wrong tack with this "reliable source" business. Zora 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That "business" is known as policy.

Please stop soliciting editors on other pages, Zora. It's considered spamming.Timothy Usher 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They have not understood WP:RS policy, although they claim that have read it. Some neutral website but only using islam in their names are not acceptable by them. They support untrue things not mentioned in Quran but a reliable scholar say (without any Quranic references that) it is mentioned in Quran. They support claims made on the based of WRONG reasoning but told by their reliable sources. --- Faisal 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamonline is not a neutral website, its not biased just uncritical of islam.Hypnosadist 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral and not biased??. --- Faisal 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a site run by muslims for muslims on islam it is not Neutral on the subject of islam IE:- whether islam is the True word of God or something made up by a human, islamonline has only one answer that it is the word of god. Thats not Neutral. As for bias i do not have any evidence that islam online is biased in the sence that it misreprsents facts. Bias is a matter of how much is acceptable as no-one can be truely neutral.Does that clear up what i was saying about the Scholarly sections of islamonline, i have not been on the chat or political sections(which are not usually relivent here).Hypnosadist 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You accept anit-Islam author saying The main problem in all of these religous studies is there are no neutral commentators, either they are pro or anti with most members of the faith or converts. So that means you will also accept Islamonline because it is not biased according to you. Tell me, If I quote a good scholar with the reference from Islamonline will that be acceptable or not? --- Faisal 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also not fact-checked. Peer-reviewed, I'm not sure...Timothy Usher 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As i've said before that Quotes from a Named Scholar on islamonline should be acceptable, based on the repute of the scholar themselves. But remember they are not truely neutral either.Hypnosadist 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate solicitation

Note that BhaiSaab’s participation in this article[10] was solicited by Amibidrohi’s spam to The Muslim Guild[11], [12] in contravention of Wikipedia policy. If this continues, it will be reported.Timothy Usher 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What wikipedia policy did Amibidrohi contravene?Bless sins 02:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please make these accusations on my talk page. Better yet, report them appropriately. This kind of public attempt at harassment won't work. Amibidhrohi 00:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't come by the Dhimmi article because of his post at the Muslim Guild. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So what brought you here, BhaiSaab? I've not seen you here before, and seeing as Amibidhrohi's spam posts are, along with your denunciation of "anti-Muslim editors"[13], is pretty much the discussion of the day over there, it's pretty difficult to believe the two aren't related.Timothy Usher 05:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The contribution log of another editor brought me here. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're following the contribution log of another editor? May I ask which one?Timothy Usher 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The way you phrase your questions towards me makes me think you're trying to solicit some response from me that would get me into a lot of trouble. I'm not following anyone - I just noticed the article in someone's contribution log. That's all. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "a lot of trouble", but, yes, wikistalking isn't allowed. Anyhow, it's ridiculous to suppose that you'd notice it in another editors' contributions, but not notice it when it's at the center of a discussion on the Muslim Guild in which you've been involved. Part of me assuming good faith is for you not to strain its limits. Like wikistalking and spamming, meat puppetry isn't allowed, so don't do it. It's just policy, so, no hard feelings, okay?Timothy Usher 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I didn't read the other user's post in the Muslim Guild, but that's not what brought me here, so I'm not "meat puppeting," whatever that may be. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry, let’s see...Amibidhrohi solicits “Muslim participation” on the “Muslim Guild”, and your very first edit to the article (having never, to my knowledge, appeared on talk) is a revert with the summary, “Amibidhrohi's version is better”[14]..Timothy Usher 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia states "A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues." so this is definitely not meat puppetry. Can you show how Amibidhrohi broke Wikipedia policy by asking other editors to "make articles reflect an academically and intellectually credible quality?" BhaiSaab ^talk 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Blindly reverting to Amibidhrohi's version is hardly a credible attempt to "make articles reflect an academically and intellectually credible quality", and anyhow, as you know, that's hardly all Amibidhrohi said[15].

Muslim Guild members banding together to fight "Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind" is simply not a legitimate use of talk space. If you and Amibidhrohi don't want it pointed out...don't do it.Timothy Usher 06:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for "Dhimmi". Other conversations should be engaged elsewhere. Timothy, if you have a problem with me, take it to the Wikipedia administration. Otherwise, quit whining. If you're hoping to intimidate people here into submission, it isn't working. Amibidhrohi 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, your recent posts suggest that the Muslim Guild is in fact the talk page for "Dhimmi". If you don't wish it to be part of the discussion, don't bring it there.Timothy Usher 06:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Muslim Guild members banding together to fight 'Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind' is simply not a legitimate use of talk space" Considering the amount of non-Muslim editors in the Muslim Guild, that's a pretty unreasonable statement. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Amobidhrohi wrote, "To bring about that balance, more Muslim participation is necessary."[16]

And what is the ratio? Count ‘em. And that’s not considering the ones who are misreprenting themselves (one of whom, at least, is sufficiently well-known to not require further explanation). Were it remotely proportionate to Wikipedia as a whole, Amibidhrohi’s comment above would make no sense, and the solicitation wouldn’t have been made.

By the way, what is the name of the Guild again?Timothy Usher 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That edit does not speak for everyone. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal safety and massacres

Bless sins revert's rationale "The quote by the Prophet of Islam needs to be emphasized" clearly underlines the edit's aim of promoting a view instead of following encyclopedical demand. Claiming that the "humiliation section is filled with redundancies" is taken as pretext to do the same in this section, which is unwarranted as well. That the humiliation section is filled with "quotes of mere [...] scholars" clearly states the unwillingness to abide encyclopedical basics, which decidedly favours sourced scholarly erudition. Claiming that the cited scholars are "unimportant" needs to be substantiated, and, if so, addressed in that section. You certainly will have difficulties with these: Bernard Lewis, Norman Stillman, Al-Nawawi, Al-Ghazali, Al-Tabari, Bat Ye'or and Ibn Kathir. As for the others, please argue. Amibidhrohi's added argument, that "Separating Muhammad's view from practice gives us contrast between the ideal situation and actual practice" is WP:OR and POV, and if he "think[s it] is better", that's his POV as well. Please back that up authoritatively. Quoting a hadith to make a point is OR and POV anyway, and yes, most articles on Islam are riddled with that. A shortcoming to be addressed, no argument for perpetuation. --tickle me 07:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the scholars are as important in explaining or determining Islam as Muhammad himself. His impact on Islam is profound, and whatever he says, it's the official policy in Islam (ask anyone). If one looks at the humilation section, one sees that every example of humiliation is emphasized, though the scholars that urge kindess are not. And now the quote of the Prophet (and founder) of Islam is once again de-emphasized, because it promotes something humane. Bless sins 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's set once and for all for this, as well as other Islam-related articles, that it's original research to quote the Qur'an and the hadith and draw conclusions from these quotes. We can only quote scholars from reliable sources to show how the Qur'an and the hadith were interpreted. It is only the interpretation and Islamic law that matter; the holy texts per se are just sources of law, but not law. Pecher ^Talk 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Many editors have come to falsely believe that a neutral point of view means compromising between the view of reliable sources and their own views or completely unsourced generic views (e.g. the "Muslim view") which, naturally, they are qualified to represent.Timothy Usher 08:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not anymore original research to quote from the Quran and hadith to quote from some scholarly book. To say that a verse of hadith means something, without porper referneces, is, however, original research.Bless sins 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you saying it means something when you place it above well-sourced interpretations of Islamic law? Not only should original research not be presented, it shouldn't underlie our manner or order of presentation of sourced materials, either.Timothy Usher 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

encyclopedia of the orient

Amibidhrohi has added to the intro a quote from the encyclopaedia of the orient. Is this source quotable and notable? The entry is very short.Hypnosadist 13:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia of the Orient is a private website run by a Norwegian programmer. By this standard, any editor here could set up his/her own website and use it as a source. Pecher ^Talk 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had my doubts about it too. I'll try to find better sources. Also, I'll delete other instances where such sites were used as sources, which I hope you guys won't take exception to.Amibidhrohi

Unreliable Source

Can the article be said to represent a NPOV if so much of the content comes from the writings of people so polarized in their view? I mean, half the article seems to come from books by Bat Ye'or, a woman who's devoted her life to being a staunch critic of all things Muslim/Islam. While I would'nt suggest her views should be kept out, shouldn't they be balanced by more neutral authors? Amibidhrohi 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is too much reliance on Bat Ye'or in this article to present the obvious consiquences of the laws enacted. The main problem in all of these religous studies is there are no neutral commentators, either they are pro or anti with most members of the faith or converts from.Hypnosadist 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If some reliable source says that according to Quran ABC is true without giving any reference of Quran and one cannot find any Ayat from Quran verifying his claim. Then such a quote for that so called reliable source should be removed. For example this. Furthermore, if an otherwise reliable source, makes a claim based on wrong reasoning then such quote should also not be included. an example. I suggest that we should add these things in WP:RS policy and discuss them also on WP:RS talk page too. --- Faisal 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I appreciate your frankness in acknowledging that your approach across several pages is in violation of existing policy, such that this policy would need to be changed in order to accomodate it. Indeed, that's what we should do, take it there. You'll also have to change WP:NOR, as your findings that Bernard Lewis is unreliable constitute original research under the current definition. In the meantime, the best thing to do is to allow these articles to conform to the existing policy. If you're successful in changing them, we can - indeed, we must - then proceed according to the new policies.Timothy Usher 00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power not a reliable source? It is a real book with ISBN: 0300094221 , its not a tv show. Also, I made a mistake. The publisher is Yale University Press[17] (I apologize for that).Bless sins 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody claimed the book not to be real or a TV show. However, it's a T.V. book, companion to the PBS video "Islam: Empire of Faith." Thus it doesn't qualify as peer-reviewed scientific publication. Given that the authors (Jonathan Bloom, Sheila Blair) are art historians, the beware false authority restriction applies. I explained so in my edit summary.

Peer review is only a requirement for scientific articles. Also, using that logic Bat Ye'or should be removed from the article.--Dr.Worm 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You added a reference to "A History of Islamic societes" by Ira M. Lapidus, p. 599. That page deals with 19th and 20th century Algeria. Ottoman rule started to wane a century earlier. Please provide a verbatim quote, here or in the article, so others can evaluate your inference of equal opportunity.

</ref> During the reign of Ottomans, however, local Chritisan population were encouraged to join the military and was given equal oppurtunity.<ref>Lapidus (1988), p. 599</ref>

{{cite book | last = Lapidus | first = Ira M. | title = A History of Islamic societes | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 1988 | id = ISBN 0521225523}}

--tickle me 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the book on me and can do so easily. But, question: am I under the obligation to provide further information, is it my responsibility? Previously, when I asked for an explanation, I was told that it is the duty of the disputer to bring forth evidence to siqualify a quote [18]. If you can show me anything in the wikipedia policy that says I should provide you with further explanations, then I'll gladly do it. I just don't like when others don't do the same for me.Bless sins 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked the second edition of this book to find out that page 599 discusses the political struggle in Algeria in 1970-80s. I understand that different editions may be different, but they are unlikely to be that different. Therefore, please provide the quote verbatim. Pecher ^Talk 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? You want the quote? Just provide me the info. I want [19], I'll do the same to you.Bless sins

So you provide an incorrect quote from a specific page in a book, another editor with the same book calls you on it, and he's at fault? That's rich. - Merzbow 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that I be held to the same rules as Pecher. If Pecher doesn't provide me with an explanation ( here), why should I do the same???Bless sins 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT; it's unacceptable to spill disputes over to other articles. In addition, the situation on Islam and anti-Semitism, where you have been edit warring for quite a long time, is entirely different. Here, you have been shown that your quote is likely to be unreliable; there, you did not show any evidence that my quote is unreliable, you're just raising demands that other people should tell you more. Pecher ^Talk 22:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, answer this question: after I properly cite my quote (with pg. numbers and everything), whose responsibility is it to follow up with additional explanations? The original authors? Or the ones disputing the quote?Bless sins 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bless. Obviously, it is not your obligation to add a direct quote! Anyone who asks you to do so, while being unwilling to subject their own side's arguments to the same level of scrutiny, would be an abject hypocrite. That being said, the book is in my library and I can confirm that it says what you say it says.--Dr.Worm 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How is Jonathan Blair "false authority"? He is a professor on history of Islamic art and architecture. Furthermore, he is the Chair Of Islamic and Asian Art at Boston College and got his PhD from Harvard University. Peer reviewed? Do you consider Sheila Blair to be his peer, (she's actually his wife, but that doesn't matter). The book was jointly composed by both of them. Both have written scholarly books that have won international awards. Bless sins 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First, please do not insert your comment inside a comment by another editor. Secondly, both Blair and Bloom (yes, that's his last name) are art historians, as Tickle me has correctly pointed out. Therefore, they should be authorities on Islamic art, but not outside this area. Thankfully, there is a sufficient number of authorities on the subject of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule so we need no art historians to add to the chorus. Pecher ^Talk 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose the house and mansions of the Dhimmis (and Muslims alike) have nothing to with Islamic architecture. If the authors provided info on Islamic law or wars gought by Muslims, then yes, I'd agree that they are false authority. But the everyday way of life is most certainly art!! The food people ate, the way they lived, the languages they spoke and the houses they inhabited is all part of art history.Bless sins 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a verifiable source. You have to leave it in unless you are willing to subject all of the other sources to the same scrutiny. --Dr.Worm 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the taxes they paid, the medicines they took, the tools they invented, the laws of nature they discovered: all is part of art history. Pecher ^Talk 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Invention of tools is also part of art history (esp during stone age). Many artists are fascinated that the way cave-men (with pirmitive lifestyles) used tools to create painting, for that is the first ever art created. Taxes would be legal stuff, so therefore not part of history. Anyways, houses (and mansions) are DEFINETLY part of architecture. Bless sins 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, everything that you find convenient for your POV is art history. That's no longer funny, so you may want to try and entertain people on other talk pages. I've enjoyed this conversation at least as much as I enjoyed Bloom and Blair's fairy tales about city dwellers living in luxurious mansions and discussing Greek philosophy (to those who didn't see that book: I'm not kidding). Pecher ^Talk 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, everything that you find inconvenient to you POV is only art history! That is how I see it. As I have allways been told, the test is WP:V not Wikitruth.--Dr.Worm 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think I am entertainment, why should i even respond to you? Wikipedia bases it self not on the truth but verifiability. Just because you think something is a "fairy tale", doesn't mean it won't be put in to wikipedia.Bless sins 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloom is an expert on Islamic architecture. Agreed? Architecture:"Buildings and other large structures."[20] What is a house: "A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family."[21]. Pecher, it doesn't get any simpler than this. Face it, houses (and other structures) are all part of the domain architecture, of which Bloom is an expert.Bless sins 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Ira M. Lapidus. WP:Verifiability lies the burden of evidence with the editor, limiting this to the provision of a source, however: so far you complied. I couldn't find any provision for the case at hand: a source is provided, but the derived edit's accuracy is put in doubt. While my research merely justifies doubt, Pecher's findings, having checked the book, makes the factuality of your edit quite unlikely. Can we agree that your rejection of the burden of evidence may well be considered wikilawyering? Please provide needed information, else I'll delete the edit, as I feel that further discussion of that topic is pointless. --tickle me 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Percher must not have been paying attention if he checked the book. It is obvious that Bless sins's addition is accurate in my copy.--Dr.Worm 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Jonathan Bloom, Sheila Blair. You cited these art historian's unspecific depiction of architectural details and commonplace facilities tailing referals to Stillman, Al-Mawardi, and Ye'or. All are historians, orientalists or jurists. They provided corresponding evaluations on the situation of dhimmis. The edit insinuates hat Bloom's and Blair's portrayal would fit as a qualifier for the preceding. This is factually wrong, as you use false authority to make a point - your point. Besides, it's OR. See below the paragraph in question, so others don't get lost. Your edit is italicised.

The dhimmis’ obligation not to build houses higher than those of Muslims is one of the clauses of the Pact of Umar, [12] supported as a desirable condition of ‘’dhimma’’ by the consensus opinion of Islamic scholars. [94] The rule was not always enforced; for example, no such laws were recorded in Muslim Spain, and in Tunisia Jews owned fine houses. [95] During Islam's golden age, Jews and Christians both enjoyed fine houses in splendid cities, serviced by paved streets, running water and sewers. Many of their homes would also be covered with luxurious carpets

--tickle me 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"re:Jonathan Bloom, Sheila Blair": You still haven't answered my question. Where does it say in wikipedia policy that I'm under obligation to provide you with verbatim sentences of what the author wrote? Is there any info about the book that I have not provided you with?? Have I refused to comply with any wikipedia policy???? Am I breaking any wikipedia rules???

By the way, if you are using a google book search, then you probably see the 2002 version. I'm using the 1988 version. That's the one you should check out, indeed that the one I specified in the references section. If you have problems with the 1988 version, then post back and I'll post the exact quote for you.Bless sins 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

False authority? Mansions and houses (of the presumably rich) is not art history? Artists have always studied the elite and rich, that is (par of) their domain. All throughout europe, artits have always depicted the royals and the noble in their fancy halls and palaces. For this they surely need knowlege of the lifestyles of the rich. Surely the vast majority of dhimmis weren't treated this way, but a small minoirty did enjoy life. Also how is this OR? It is clearly cited to Bloom and blair.Bless sins 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the very most it would be only be a tiny minority of Jews and Christians that lived like that, no? At the minimum a qualifier is needed not to mislead the reader into thinking that 'in general' Jews and Christians lived like that. - Merzbow 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

May jews prospered in arab lands. For example, Jewish doctors were paid allmost twice as much and valued more than muslim doctors is midieval hospitals. --Dr.Worm 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah ...no. Merely adding a qualifier to OR and breaches of WP:RS would equal to adding to edits proven wrong. Besides Ye'or added a specified qualifier already regarding Muslim Spain and Tunisian Jews, and legitimately so. --tickle me 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins i think your definition of Art history much to broad, i think specific factual info on when/where there were rich dhimmi and when/where there were not would be of use showing the historical varience in the implimentation of dhimma laws. But remember the rich by that fact can buy their way around rules that apply to most people. This is were the limitations of an art historian become apperant as they only realy study the rich before the 20c.Hypnosadist 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR you need to cite a source that jewish tunisians actually bought their way out of regulations. Or, if I may add my own opinion, maybe no one really cared about how high their houses where.--Dr.Worm 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we can add a qualifier to introduce this quote. WE can make it clear that this didn't apply to all (or even most) dhimmis. BUt it did apply to a minority of dhimmis, and so it should be in the article. Just becasue dhimmis were rich doesn't mean that they weren't dhimmis. Bless sins 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're proposing to do is to add original research to rectify a piece of nonsense. Bless sins, please stop your favorite tactic of argumentum ad infinitum; you won't win the argument by wearing down other editors. These fairy tales come from a T.V. show companion rather than from a scholarly book, and they have no place in an encyclopedia article. The debate is hereby closed. Pecher ^Talk 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your personal attacks on Bless to be offensive. Try tp sat civil!

T.V. show?? The quote clearly come from a book! A book written by proffessors specializing in Islamic art and architecture.Bless sins 11:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ALso, can someone pls. tell me what qualifications Bat Ye'or has to qualify her quotes to be in the article. Where did she get her education in Islamic History? Is she a professor of some university right now? What qualifies her to be an expert in Islamic history.Bless sins 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't abuse the talk page inserting your comments inside mine. As for the rest of this thread: eod. --tickle me 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I too can confirm now that you don't have a leg to stand on, Bless sins. In fact, anyone can. Go to Amazon and choose 'search inside this book': amazon.com. Search for 'Algeria', then go to p. 599. Nothing on the Ottoman Empire. Now do you want to keep digging yourself deeper in your hole or provide an explanation? - Merzbow 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins: Please stop this for good. This is not even wikilawyering' anymore. --tickle me 22:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Merzbox and Pecher, you are all using History of Islamic societies (2002). The quote I put was from History of Islamic societies (1988).

You can't pick up the wrong book, and expect find my quote there. You MUST look at History of Islamic societies (1988), in order to find my quote on page 599.Bless sins 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

People have asked you to give the full quote, which you have so far failed to provide. Pecher ^Talk 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want the full quote in its context, go check out the book History of Islamic societies (1988), p. 599. I assure you, you will find it there. Don't say you didn't find the quote, if you didn't bother to use that book and instead looked at the 2002 version. The two books with identical content, have a different page numbering system.Bless sins 15:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Different editions usually are not hundreds of pages apart, and the Ottoman Empire is nowhere near page 599 in the 2002 edition; to convince people that your assertion is true, you must provide the original quote. Pecher ^Talk 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright folks, just because I'm a glutton for punishment I'm going to the local library today to check out this reference; it has the 1988 edition. Stay tuned. - Merzbow 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the straight scoop. I went to the library, found the 1988 Lapidus, and turned to p599. There is only one sentence there remotely related to Bless sin's addition to the article, and it is this:

"In 1856 the Hatt-i Humayun (Imperial Rescript) promised equality for non-Muslims and guaranteed their right to serve in the army."

That's all. (This same sentence is found at p495 of the 2002 Lapidus.) Bless sins added:

"During the reign of Ottomans, however, local Chritisan population were encouraged to join the military and was given equal oppurtunity."

There is no mention in Lapidus that they were 'encouraged' to join and there is no mention that they actually were given 'equal' opportunity. At most they were 'promised' equality and at most they were 'given the right' to serve in the army. I will clean up the info in the article to reflect the source accurately. - Merzbow 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good job. The sentence does not belong to the article at all, at least to the "Status of dhimmis" section, because Hatt-i Humayun effectively abrogated the dhimma and thus those non-Muslims for whom equality and the right to serve in the army were promised were no longer dhimmis. Pecher ^Talk 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. In that case, feel free to remove what I added. - Merzbow 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose to move to a new section titled like "Emancipation of dhimmis" (feel free to suggest a vetter title), which would deal with the Westernizing reforms in the course of which dhimmi laws ceased to be implemented in practice. Pecher ^Talk 09:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you don't think I "forged" that quote anymore. "Hatt-i Humayun effectively abrogated the dhimma "?? Who said that?? The Hatt-i Humayun would later be part of the Ottoman millet system, which was basically a continuation of dhimma. "Dhimmis" were not abolished until the end of the Ottoman empire itself. The quote is definetly relevent. Also, the book says "[Ottomans]] guaranteed their right to serve in the army." (emphasis added.Bless sins 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that you misrepresented what the quote said. (See above). And this all could have been cleared up without having me make a trip to the library if you had just given us the quote. But of course that would have revealed how you had misrepresented it.

Anyways, from what the The Encyclopedia of World History Online source claims, it does look like the practice of dhimma was effectively abolished by this proclamation:

"It stressed in particular the principle of equality of Muslims and non-Muslims—in military service, the administration of justice, taxation, admission to state schools, public employment, and social respect. The traditional poll tax (jizya), which had symbolized the inferior status of non-Muslims since the early days of Islam, was rescinded."

It strains credulity to believe that if these measures were effective, the non-Muslism they applied to could in any sense be considered dhimmis anymore. But I wish we had a source that drew this inference directly. Merzbow 03:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It is a large break with the past... but religion has always been a political tool and the tanzimat reforms as with most reforms in societies where an organized religion is important have been portrayed as fitting with the religion (this only stopped with Ataturk who went for all out explicit secularization). Therefore, I think it should be mentioned because you can't judge which changes to religious practices (as ordained by the state) are "religious" or not. It is relevant to mention the political climate surrounding the changes (such as extreme pressure from European powers post-Crimea) since they were forces that led to the change. It is being incredibly prescriptive about what dhimma is to say that equalization is definitely un-dhimma... traditionally that may be the case but the hatt-i-humayun changed that from at least the Ottoman state's point of view. It would be interesting to find out how the ulama felt about this since they undoubtedly disagreed.

Bless sins... please, these discussions can get tense. But, do try to be helpful... if someone wants a quote from a book give it to them... don't make them search. We are here to write an encyclopedia and making someone waste time to find a copy of the book when you have it is completely unproductive. So, please, in the future do not do that. (by the way... I have a copy of the 1988 edition in case it's needed) gren グレン 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I finally found a source that specifically linked the Tanzimat reforms to the decline of the practice of dhimma (Spencer), and added a new section as Pecher suggested above (containing the Lapidus info as well). - Merzbow 00:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher why the delete

Why have you deleted the referenced Malik's Muwatta information, if its just about the location put it at the front of those two bits. It contains extra info like the 10% trade investment tax.Hypnosadist 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment is just one tradition about jizya among dozens of others and is mostly repetitive. I don't mind against the description of trade investment tax, but there should be a way of writing that in one sentence rather than in one paragraph with a reference ro reliable secondary sources confirming that was indeed a position of the Maliki school. Pecher ^Talk 07:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No body is claiming that it was the position of the Maliki school We are only claiming it was the position of Malik (as he wrote in his Mutawwa), who was a great classical scholar and needs to be quoted. Furthermore this is Malik's interpretation of the Sunnah (or Hadith). Also, if you check the humiliation section all of those quotes can be easily summarized. You begin by removing the redundances over there.Bless sins 11:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article is deficient elsewhere, address that shortcoming - don't use it to make a point in other sections. --tickle me 12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have adressed the shortcomings of Humiliation section, where "striking on cheeks" and other info. was repeated several times. I have expressend in a few sentences, though I have not removed any of the sources. This is sort of what many editors did to the Malik's Mutawwa quote.Bless sins 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work Bless sins. Keep up the good work. --- Faisal 16:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Malik quote is important, because it comes from the first two centuries of the Islamic era. It is a very early report on how jizya was levied, a subject about which there is not much in the hadiths. Also the point about the distinction between jizya and zakat - and the different reasons why they were levied - is important.Eagleswings 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you still haven't answered my question: what qualifications Bat Ye'or have to qualify her quotes to be in the article. Where did she get her education in Islamic History? Is she a professor of some university right now? What qualifies her to be an expert in Islamic history.Bless sins 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You just can't wikipedia to back up your claims. Please provide info. as to her education, area of expertise, qualifications etc. What makes her a scholarly source?Bless sins 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She has been publishing books on Islam via major university presses since 1971, probably longer than you've been alive. - Merzbow 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A web-site targeting Islam got millions hits like jehadwatch.com etc. similarly a biased author targeting Islam can publish book easily in West. Both are not credible and neutral without having other evidences. --- Faisal 11:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

She is a pundit, not a scholar. It is the same a quoting Ann Coulter. Throw her out because she is not a reliable source!

Very many of the citations from Bat Ye'or are references to primary sources, as her books contain very large passages quoted from Muslim and non-Muslim sources. No-one has ever questioned the accuracy of her sources. This debate has already been worked through in the past anyway. It is going over old ground and will get us nowhere. Eagleswings 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation for modern times in the introduction

Modern times in the introduction still has citation needed i'm suggesting http://memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SP110306 which was posted above and seams appropriate. What do other editors think?Hypnosadist 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it.Timothy Usher 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not nice to quote one cuntry one instance or few... There are more than 50 Muslim countries. --- Faisal 11:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim it was indicative of the whole of 50+ nations, just that this was a notable proof of the continued implimentation of dhimma and the forced collection of jizya. This just shows that it IS implimented some-where, and this is not a Bat Ye’or quote its by a muslim academic based on current research. Faisal if you have a reason why this quote is not noteable then please say.Hypnosadist 13:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am out of time now for today. Can you please wait for sometime (at least 24 hours) before going ahead with the change? I would like to take a close look at the above URL and want to read it completely. Furthermore, I want to investigate the author of the write-up and his affiliation/neutrality. I will then get back to you. Thanking you in anticipation. --- Faisal 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Its nearly 48 hours later, have you found anything to say against her?Hypnosadist 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war in Humiliation

Can we please talk about this here. I think the section was overly long with a lot of repeat information. I think that we only need two or three quotes here but the current edit has a very POV use of quotes out of context. The Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Maghili quote is cut down so much as to be almost meaningless. This quote should in my opinion be in full and first as it contains a lot of information about both physical reality of dhimma and the mind-set there of. Then you could just say that the following theologians agree with this such as Al-Nawawi , Muhammad_ibn_Jarir_al-Tabari and Al-Ghazali and give the apropriate quotes. OK Discuss people.Hypnosadist 17:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So 7 edits later the article is still the same and no-one has said anything. Come on people.Hypnosadist 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the obligation to say something falls upon those who are repeatedly removing sourced material.Timothy Usher 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at both of the passages at dispute in the current edit war - the Malik quote and the Humiliation info. I think the expanded versions of both deserve to stay in the article; they do not make either of the sections they are in overly long in my opinion. How about it? - Merzbow 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Malik quote removed? BhaiSaab ^talk 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no answers here? Is that mean there is no use to talk? --- Faisal 09:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer has been given several times: the quote is repetitive and the most important part of it has been retained. Pecher ^Talk 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Malik quote is repetitive, the large quotes in the Humiliation section are doubly so. We need to have the same standard in both places. - Merzbow 17:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose to wait for a feedback from the editor who has added most of these quotes. Pecher ^Talk 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My current suggestion is that we keep the long version of BOTH quotes.Hypnosadist 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pecher - I was out of action for a few daysbut am back now. The issue of reducing this section needs some careful thought and should not be rushed into. Obviously, the jizya payment ritual quotes are reactive material. The allegation that they are 'taken out of context' is silly and unsupported. The ideal thing would be to be able to reference someone who has done an overview of the jizya payment commentary, looking at its variability and constant features across time and space. As far as I know such a study has not been done. Clearly some features were quite widespread, such as the ritual "decapitation" through a blow to the side of the neck. Others are more variable, e.g. for some the dhimmi must stand bent over, but for others he must crawl on hands and knees, although the point of the exercise in both cases is the same. The danger in summarizing this material is that the commentary becomes too interpretive, and the material is already reactive. So often the complaint is made that articles on Islam don't cite Muslim sources: the best way to deal with this material to let Islamic authorities speak for themselves. But if one was to reduce the section, which quote(s) should stay? This is also not so straightforward. The quote which gives the most detail, with context, is Maghili's. However Maghili is a a less prominent jurist. Nawawi and Al-Ghazali carry more weight, but they have less to say. On the balance, I would suggest leaving the quotes in. The analogy with all the hadith citations in the jizya article is a valid one. This IS a matter which needs to be documented from the writings of jurists. It IS controversial material. No author has done an overview of the material. And the jurists do not all say the same thing. So at this point the best option seems to be to include a variety of quotations. Eagleswings 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So it looks like the expanded versions of both selections of quotes should stay then. - Merzbow 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Malik quote is important as a very early report of how the jizya was levied. I have edited this quote, and reordered paragraphs in the whole section to make it all flow much better - the earlier edits, including the insertion of the Malik quote had made it all somewhat garbled. Eagleswings 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)