Talk:Jizya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Zakat again

Rejwan asserts that Jizya "may be seen as a kind of substitute for zakat". He is asserting that this is one way it could be looked at, not that it is a simple fact, as Truthspreader's edit again tried to claim. In addition, Rejwan's expertise in Muslim jurisprudence is not clear. Finally, Truthspreader is again inserting that unsourced "2.5%" nonsense, when the article itself contradicts that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is some other references will be acceptable to you? Following are two I am able to find using Google-books (you can verify yourself). I will put them after your reply . I start getting impression that you will not accept any reference? Please tell me that I am wrong because otherwise we need a RFC/Mediation. --- ALM 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the page number specified, read the text carefully. Evaluate Andrew Rippin too. I will try to find 2-3 more references before thinking about you taking to RFC/Mediation as next step. That will be in case your did not change your stance of denying all the references. --- ALM 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K., it took a while, because you mixed up your page numbers. The Rippin reference is actually page 256, and the Taji-Farouki is page 215. Regarding the Rippin reference, it's not Rippin who says that, but he's actually quoting someone else who is making some sort of suggestion about changing the law of zakat in modern times. Who is he quoting, and in exactly what context? As far as the Taji-Farouki reference goes, what the book actually says is "Jizya is a type of security tax paid by non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. This is, in many respects, the most controversial of taxes, but there are no direct guidelines on how much is payable, though it can be regarded as a substitute for zakat and kharaj". Note, the author says it is "in many respects, the most controversial of taxes", and it can be regarded as a substitute, not that it is a substitute. By the way, did you know that the author isn't Taji-Farouki?

Now, if we're getting into the business of cherry-picking Google book sources, you're starting to play a dangerous game. For example, what do you do with the following:

Jurists debated whether the jizya mandated by the Qur'an constituted a penatly (uquba; that is a means of debasement) or a fee (ujra), paid to secure physical protection and residential rights. Most authorities held that is was a penalty... As mentioned, the poll tax was supposed to be collected in a manner that emphasized the dhimmi's "lowliness." Numerous humiliating ceremonies were employed, such as the hand-slap on the neck... According to Islamic law, dhimmis paid twice the commercial taxes levied on Muslims, usually 5 percent... In certain periods, the humiliating seal stamped on the neck served as receipt for payment of the jizya... A ruler might on occasion raise the amount of the poll tax to extortionate levels. Mark R. Cohen. Under Crescent and Cross: the Jews in the Middle Ages, 1994, pp. 69-70.

There are plenty more good sources besides that give a quite different picture of jizya than Truthspreader and you are trying to present; I haven't bothered to comb through literally a dozen significantly more rounded sources yet; are you insisting on playing that game? The bottom line is that, regardless of modern-day speculation and rationales, the jizya was never conceived of as a substitution for zakat; its rationale was quite different, and modern-day apologetics or re-framing certainly don't belong in the lead of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just regarding "As mentioned, the poll tax was supposed to be collected in a manner that emphasized the dhimmi's "lowliness."; Claude Cahen says that this was a misreading of the revelant quranic verse by some later commentators. It was anyways done by commentators and not jurists and this is also an important point. --Aminz 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg neither you a great scholar and nor is me. You are allowed "cherry picking" your sources and keep them in the article. When someone gives other side of view then you start reverting. The article should have both sides of views. I will find more sources and quote them. The two sources say same things and these are the first two useful sources you find when search Google-book using "Jizya and Zakat". Hence why it is cherry picking? Prove your abuse?

It does not matter if those sources quote someone else or not. It is funny if you have to see that a source quotes someone else while writing or not. As long as it is mentioned in his book it goes with his reference. Second source say exactly same thing but you stop quoting it before it say something more useful.

I will find 4-5 sources and then change the lead. If you did not change yourself then we will meet in RFC or mediation. You continue to assume bad faith towards me. Why I am cherry picking sources? I am a freaking devil and you an Angel? Why cannot you assume good faith at all? Do you own this article and wikipedia? Please look at your behavior and your comments. Read WP:AGF and WP:NPOV (that mean each sides view with sources). Please do not give me this abuse of cherry picking again; it is enough to say it few times already. --- ALM 10:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't even know who actually wrote your first two sources! The bottom line is, jizya was not conceived of as some sort of substitution for zakat, and the sources you have brought don't make that claim. Moreover, the debate about jizya belongs, if anywhere, in the body of the article, not in the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can find that out that who had written those sources (Even when the book has their name as author on it). However, my finding out will be useless because you are in complete denial and even I put 100 really reliable sources in front of you, looks like even then you are not going to listen. That is a very unfortunate position. Hence I will find more sources (as many as I could) and will quote them carefully (without any alteration) and then try for mediation. I never say that Zakat and Jizya are alternative for each other. Both are meant for different objectives. However, mentioning it in the Intro is important that Muslims were not getting free ride either. --- ALM 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "important to mention that Muslims were not getting a free ride either" in the intro? Sound like you're trying to promote an agenda. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again you continue to assume bad faith? What is wrong with you???? I think it will make the article more neutral and it is an important fact to mention in the intro. Just like many people say (for example Hypnosadist said above) that against those who do not pay Jizya Muslims are order to go war but he do not know that those who do not pay Zakat are order to kill. We should present both side of fact so that reader can see the whole picture. Hence yes "it is important to mention that Muslims were not getting a free ride either". I am not an agent here on some agenda. Secondly do you know about "survey papers". They have NO original idea but still they are highly referred. Do you think those scientist must refer original paper instead of survey-papers? Should I give you some example of such papers. I am mentioning that because something you mention above. Yes, I cannot say that Andrew Rippin say ABC however, I can still say ABC[Andrew Rippin book] even when ABC is not said by Andrew Rippin (but mention in his book). --- ALM 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explains why it is "important" to include in the lead that Muslims are "not getting a free ride". What do "free rides" have to do with jizya? As for the Rippin reference, if you don't know who said something, and you don't even know what is said on the page following the quote from that unknown person, then you clearly can neither quote them, nor present their argument properly and in context. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucky page below it and page above it both are readable online. I am clear about context if you are not then please read them. They will be available to read to any other persons. I told you already that why. I say it again Why=: It is important to give balance view. a) People say those not pay Jizya are ordered to fight with (it is true) however reader should know that same is true with Zakat. Even Abu-Bakar order to fight against a tribe that decline to pay Zakat (I am not 100% sure if it was indeed Abu-Bakr or someone else but I have read about it and can find references about it too). Secondly, non-Muslim have to pay Jizya it is mandatory but we have to tell reader that Zakat is also mandatory which ONLY Muslims have to pay. Above mention view is more balanced and tell more complete picture of both sides. I do not like to repeat things but I think I have answer "why" now twice?

References are not problem, I can find many more. I have read something similar about it in YUSUF ALI Tafsir too. However, that was in LUMS library. Now I have to find it in Germany but I can still try. Dear User:Jayjg my brother do not assume that if I am Muslim then I have to be non-neutral. I do not want to assume anything about you and wish to feel as much good about you as possible. If you come towards me one step then I will come towards you two steps. If you try to assume good faith towards me then it will be much easy for us -:). ---- ALM 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Zakat and its relation to Jizah does need to be delt with but in the body of the article, not the intro. Also the fact that according to you Abu-Bakar killed muslims to force them to pay Zakat does not make it ok to kill non-muslims to impose Jizya, just not hypocritical.Hypnosadist 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Collecting Sources for Mediation

1. " The imposition of an arganised Zakat collection system should be the objection of every Islamic state, both for the benefit of social peace and religious fulfilment. This might create a problem where Muslim live side by side with non-Muslims. It would not be just to charge the Muslim with both civil and religious taxes while the non-Muslim neighbour pays only one tax. In the past non-Muslim neighbour pays Jizya which was the conterpart of Zakat... "

Comment on the above sources

So Andrew Rippin believe's that the Jizya is the forced implimentation of Islamic Religious Practices (namely the Zakat) on non-muslims in "every Islamic state". Cool this is a bit of evidence i've been looking for, i have to find the right plave to put it in the article.Hypnosadist 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not implementation of Zakat for non-Muslim. He is NOT saying so. However, yes in Islamic state Jiyza as well as Zakat both are required to pay. If someone refused to pay Zakat and is Muslim then he can be killed. --- ALM 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly above is NOT saying of Andrew Rippin too. But his books says this with quoting someone else. --- ALM 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a different name does make it a differnt thing, Muslims choose to pay Zakat (and support a religious/legal system that imposes it). Non-Muslims do not get to choose this. Mr Rippin's source clearly says that Zakat is a religious tax imposed to equate with jizya and as such is the forced implimentation of muslim beliefs on non-muslims.Hypnosadist 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Zakat is imposed earlier than Jiyza. Jiyza Ayhat is one of the later Ayhat in Quran (in surat Touba). Even Rippin's book is not saying so. I have to follow different rules imposed by Germany govt which is not Muslim. Similarly citizen of Muslim country has to follow their laws. The different is that some laws are made by Allah instead of man. I do not get why a Muslim choose to pay Zakat when not paying Zakat means I will be killed by state? --- ALM 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"The different is that some laws are made by Allah instead of man" you couldn't prove me more right if you tried Thanks!Hypnosadist 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To clear this up for ALM, you choose to Pay Zakat by chooseing to be a muslim and hence do what muslims should according to islam. Non-muslims should get as you say "a free ride" because it is not there faith, simple. Infact Jews and Many Christians also have the same religious tradition, its called titheing and when these groups were forced to become dhimmi's in there own land they had to pay 3 different taxes. 1) the civil taxes of the invading government. 2) the religious tax called Jizah that is impossed on them for the crime of being non-muslims 3) the tithe they pay to thier community as part of there religion (even more important now they are ruled by muslims as the islamic state only helps good muslims).Hypnosadist 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I never understand this thing that if a country say law X will be imposed then no one cries against it. However, if a country says same law X will be imposed because of Islam then everybody has a problem. In USA I had to paid more than dollars 10 K in social security and Medicare. I was there only for few years. They will never spend that money on me when I will be over 60 (old). However, right or wrong it is the law and I can choice not to work there (otherwise I MUST accept their laws). Govt. imposes new tax everyday but why cannot impose a similar tax based on Islam? --- ALM 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to move away from talk about the article and wikipedia is not a chat site so i shall not say any more.Hypnosadist 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Other references

This link doesn't connect to anything related to Jizya, try it for yourself. The ;ink is used twice in the section.

This links to a POV work by Suhas Majumdar. Can you exdplain how he/she is a reliable source? In anycase, I couldn't find the quote where he attributes a definition to Al-Marghinani.

This links to something by Andrew G. Bostom, Professor of Medicine. Medicine has nothing to do with the Arabic language, Islam, Shariah etc.Bless sins 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jizya in the Nineteenth Century

I've taken out the quote about the mistreatment of an Italian in the 19th Century. Other than the fact he was talking to tax collectors, most of the quote had no relevance to the actual tax itself. The article doesnt look at any other quoted accounts of how the tax was collected, so the piece was inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.83.244 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moshe Gil, pg. 28

I checked out the source "A History of Palestine, 634-1099" pg. 28. The quote indeed mentions "tax" but it doesn't say "jizya". Infact, the sentence "Muhammad himself sent a letter to the Christians and Jews of Elath requiring the imposition of jizya:" seems to be complete OR since Moshe Gil says nothing of the sort.

Now it may be that I'm incorrect. If so, please correct me. But from what I've read, Moshe Gil isn't talking about jizya.Bless sins (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Check page 30, where Gil specifically states that Muhammad uses the word jizya for "tax". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said on my talk, Bless sins, you've modified a direct quote and tagged it as OR. It can't be. Please re-read WP:OR. Jay's also got the book, so if you still have some doubt, check page 30. -or here. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the book. Firstly, only the parts of the quote that are relevant to jizya should be mentioned. I had removed the parts that are not relevant to the topic of jizya. Moshe Gil, however provides at least three letters that Muhammad sent. Should we quote all of them? If yes, I can provide you with examples of several other letters. It would be ridiculous to simply copy and paste such large amounts of text. Thus, I've summarized Moshe Gil (in fact he provides a summary of the notable aspects of the letters on pg. 30). It must also be mentioned (I have already) that jizya in those letters means something that is different from the later and more generally accepted meaning.Bless sins (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the "or else" part is relevant. Arrow740 (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The direct quote is better, and clearly shows jizya as a poll tax originating as "protection money". Your paraphrase appears to obscure this. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then answer this: how many direct quotes should we have? Five? Ten? Should half this article be direct quotes of some letter sent to a small town in Arabia? Should we copy and paste irrelevant parts of the letter, those that have nothing to with jizya? On wikipedia summarizing concepts is much better than simply inserting superfluous quotes (esp. since Moshe Gil himself summarizes the contents). Finally, you removed sourced content that I added[1].Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you even asking this? Arrow740 (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, first the Gil quote was objected to on the grounds that Gil wasn't reliable. Then it was expurgated, on the grounds that the full quote wasn't relevant (as if the consequences for not paying a tax are somehow irrelevant to the tax itself). Then it was removed on the grounds that it was original research, that Gil wasn't actually referring to jizya. Now it's being removed and POV "summaries" inserted on the grounds that if we have one quote, then we'll end up with dozens? The quote appears to be the first time Muhammad uses the term jizya, and spells out the terms of its acceptance. As such, it is all relevant. Wikipedia is not censored. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Bless sins is being disruptive. Arrow740 (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When did I say Gil is not reliable? "As such, it is all relevant." This article is not "Muhammad's letters to various tribes", but "Jizya". Thus only parts of the letter are relevant. Even you accept that fact, because in your version we see "...". Clearly you are omitting some parts of the letter.

The second issue is flooding the article with letters. I disagree with this, and it will only make the article into a quotefarm. This is Wikipedia not Wikiquote.

Finally, can someone explain why reliable content is being removed from this article?Bless sins (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding various attempts to remove the Gil quote, please read through the entire Talk: page - the quote makes people very uncomfortable, and so they have come up with four entirely different rationales for removing all or part of it. A more cynical person might imagine that people simply wanted to remove the quote, and were inventing rationales after the fact for doing so. Regarding the quote itself, as explained, it's hard to imagine how the penalties for failing to pay the jizya would be irrelevant to the tax, but perhaps you can come up with something. Regarding the "issue" of "flooding the article with letters", I don't see it currently being "flooded" with letters; perhaps if that were to happen it might be a relevant issue. Finally, regarding your question "why reliable content is being removed from this article?", I don't know, why are you doing that? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"the quote makes people very uncomfortable" Well I'm not "people", I'm a single person. Nor do I feel uncomfortable. If I did I wouldn't be adding more of Moshe Gil to this article. "A more cynical person..." Then it's a good thing you're not cynical, since the cynical conclusion would violate WP:AGF.

"it's hard to imagine how the penalties for failing to pay the jizya would be irrelevant to the tax," Those are not penalties for failing to pay the jizya. You're simply interpreting a 7-th century text in a 21st century way. Even if we do interpret it, which would border OR, the penalties are for violating many commandments (e.g. failure to "obey God"), of which jizya is only one.

Regarding the flooding issue: Moshe Gil provides two other quotes besides this, does he not? Check the book, because apparently you have it. Other than Moshe Gil, I have access to literature that provide other quotes. If each quote was to be put in then this article would be dominated by them. I propose that a more sane approach would be to include Moshe Gil's (not mine, but Moshe' Gil's) summary of all the quotes/letters. My proposal is also better, since only in Gil's summary do we see any mention of "jizya".

Finally, armon is removing sourced content (i.e. Moshe Gil's summary). The content being removed is also the most meaningful content, since it discusses jizya, it's early meaning (which is different from it's later meaning), and its significance. The content being added is ambiguous (someone who hasn't read Gil has no clue of its relevance to jizya) and unnecessary (presenting concepts unrelated to jizya).Bless sins (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part of what armon removed was "Moshe Gil's summary"? You certainly didn't include any quotation marks around anything you entered, and your own summary was not the same as Gil's. Regarding penalties for failing to pay the tax, Muhammad is quite clear that if the Jews of Elath failed to pay the tax, the result would be that he would fight them, "and take the young as captives and slay the elderly." No interpretation required, and in any event, none involved, since we merely quote Muhammad, as Gil does. And Muhammad's threat was quite credible, since he had done exactly that with other Jewish tribes he had previously conquered - indeed, this is something Gil points out, that Muhammad's hard-line policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation" towards the Jews of Medina was replaced with a policy of forcing them to acquiesce, lay down arms, and pay taxes - though it curiously failed to find a place in your summary. Finally, regarding the "flooding" issue, Gil does provide a total of 3 quotations, of which we have one; threatening to add more quotations in the hopes of forcing out one you don't like seems perverse. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To see what armon removed, please look at the red text in the left hand side column at this link. "Muhammad is quite clear that if..." You are interpreting a 7th century religious text. This is what Relata refero warns against below: don't try to interpret a religious text that is a primary source. Even if we go along with you, the punishment is for failure to obey various injunctions, not just failure to pay jizya. For example, one such injunction is mentioned as "obey God".

"though it curiously failed to find a place in your summary" Gil doesn't relate it to jizya, so I didn't mention it. "Gil does provide a total of 3 quotations" so why do we quote only one? I hope its not because some users wish to promote a certain POV over another. BTW< Gil quotes 3 texts, I can find you many more (from perfectly reliable sources). It'll take me quite some time to type them up, that's why I want to make sure that flooding this article with quotes is what you want before I spend the time.Bless sins (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what Armon removed, but that wasn't a direct quote of Gil, was it? Regarding "interpreting a 7th century text", as I already said, "No interpretation required, and in any event, none involved, since we merely quote Muhammad, as Gil does." Please read my entire comments so that I am not forced to repeat myself. Regarding failure to obey injunctions, it certainly mentions penalties for failing to pay the tax, regardless of what else it says. Regarding what failed to find a place in your summary, of course Gil relates it directly to the tax, which he makes clear is jizya. Finally, regarding the quotations, again, are you trying to force a quotation out of the article by threatening to insert two others? This seems quite bizarre, and a clear case of WP:POINT, if nothing else. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"but that wasn't a direct quote of Gil, was it?" No it wasn't. The vast majority of sourced content in wikipedia isn't a "direct quote", but rather a paraphrasing of the source. This is the most common, and the most appropriate, way to write an article.

"since we merely quote Muhammad, as Gil does." Gil does not quote Muhammad for th purposes of explaining jizya. We, however, are supposed include material only for the purposes of talking about jizya. We are not concerned with any other topic not related to jizya, as Gil clearly is.

"Regarding failure to obey injunctions, it certainly mentions penalties for failing to pay the tax..." again that is your interpretation. I don't find that Gil has made the interpretation. Do you?

"Regarding what failed to find a place in your summary, of course Gil relates it directly to the tax," You appear to be very unfamiliar with Islamic history. Let me clear up a few things. Gil says that Muhammad had a policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation (Bani Qurayza)" towards the Jews of Medina. This policy was in response to the Jews' treachery, assassination attempts and provocations of violence. The policy was not in response to failure to pay jizya. Infact, jizya wasn't even a part of Islam until the Battle of Khaybar, two years after this policy.

Indeed, what Moshe Gil says does not contradict this. Gil says "While the Prophet had adopted a hard line towards the Jews in Medina ... he now altered his policy. (emphasis added)" This new policy, which is relevant to jizya, is "convince them to acquiesce, to relinquish any intention of maintaining a military force and to rely on Muslims for their personal security and that of their possessions in exchange for th payment of taxes laid down by special treaties." Thus Gil is talking about two different policies. The former does not mention any taxes, while the latter does.

"are you trying to force a quotation out of the article by threatening to insert two others"

Actually, I'm asking: why do you insist on one particular quotation, a quotation that pushes a particular POV? Would you be ok, if I replaced this quotation with the third letter sent to the people of Maqnā?Bless sins (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it wasn't a direct quote, it was a "paraphrase". Armon noted (and I concur) that it was an inaccurate paraphrase at best - a "whitewash", to use the technical term. Regarding Gil, he makes it quite clear that Muhammad adopted a new policy towards Jews and Christians, unlike his previous policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation (Bani Qurayza)". Gil says nothing about "the Jews' treachery, assassination attempts and provocations of violence" - you appear to have invented that. Rather, Gil states that Muhammad felt that in lands populated entirely by Jews and Christians, a "wiser policy" would involved giving up arms etc. in exchange for the payment of taxes. Those are his words. Gil goes on to say that, in fact, in these letters Muhammad first uses the term jizya for these taxes, and ties this new policy to the verse in the Qur'an which is used as the basis for the jizya. So, in fact, the letters are all about jizya, and the unexpurgated quote makes the penalties for non-payment clear. Feel free to add other quotes, but please stop whitewashing the existing quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ah, so it wasn't a direct quote, it was a "paraphrase"." Like the vast majority of sourced content on wikipedia, yes.

What made the paraphrase inaccurate? Neither you nore armon cared to explain. All armon cared to do is censor it.

"Regarding Gil, he makes it quite clear that Muhammad adopted a new policy towards Jews and Christians, unlike his previous policy (emphasis added)" Exactly! The key word is "unlike". It's good you finally realize that the previous policy does not belong in the article.

"Gil says nothing about" Ofcourse not. You have to look to other sources that discuss the policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation (Bani Qurayza)" in detail.

"you appear to have invented that" Give me a break. Don't blame your unfamiliarity with Islamic history on me. If you only go and read, you'll find the entire story.

"So, in fact, the letters are all about jizya," All of them are. Not just one that you quote, but all of them.

"and the unexpurgated quote makes the penalties for non-payment clear" Says who? Not Gil, that's for sure. Come back when you have a reliable source that says this.

Can you please stop cherry-picking quotes? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, you badly misrepresented Gil. The rest is disruptive wikilawyering. Arrow740 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you first claimed over and over that armon was "removing sourced content" which you further explained was "Moshe Gil's summary".[2] Now it turns out it wasn't Moshe Gil's summary at all, but rather, Bless Sin's summary. Your inability to accurately describe what was happening in the article is mirrored by your inability to accurately summarize Gil. As for "the Jews' treachery, assassination attempts and provocations of violence" - you tried to associate that view with Gil, when it was you who said it.[3] And yes, I'm quite familiar with that apologetic Muslim view of what Muhammad did, how the Jews all had it coming to them, but a reputable historian like Gil wouldn't repeat it as fact. Finally, as far as the new policy being "unlike" the old, only if the Jews paid jizya; otherwise, as Gil's translation of Muhammad's letter states, the penalties for not acquiescing to Muhammad's military ambitions would be the same as previous, "I shall fight you and take the young as captives and slay the elderly." Now, the quote is not going to be whitewashed, nor be replaced by a POV-summary by you. We're moving on from that. Are there other changes you would like to make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the book carefully, you wouldn't have such a hard time comprehending simple facts. On page 30, Gil summarizes the letters, does he not? Here, read this. I basically stated that summary, in manner that was relevant to an article on jizya. (Ofcourse we can't quote Gil verbatim, he is concerned with many different subjects, but we are concerned with only one - jizya). Also, like the vast majority of sourced content on wikipedia, I didn't want to quote him verbatim but paraphrase him.

"you tried to associate that view with Gil" Please don't make false allegations against me. I never associated the Jews' treachery with Gil. But it can easily be found in academic sources published by western university presses. (Contact me on my talk for further details, this isn't relevant to the topic of the article).

"Finally, as far as the new policy being "unlike" the old, only if the Jews paid jizya". Gil never that the "only" difference was jizya. That appears to be your invention.

the penalties for not acquiescing to Muhammad's military ambitions would be the same as previous, "I shall fight you and take the young as captives and slay the elderly."

Ok, so "I shall fight you and take the young as captives and slay the elderly." is a penalty "not acquiescing to Muhammad's military ambitions." Even if I agree that you are not engaging in OR (which you are, by interpreting a 7th century text), that is a penalty for "not acquiescing to Muhammad's military ambitions." We are concerned only with jizya, not with "acquiescing to Muhammad's military ambitions." You better take your criticism of Muhammad elsewhere, as it is irrelevant to this article.Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If "the Jews' treachery" wasn't "relevant to the topic of the article", why did you bring it up in the first place? Regarding the penalty, I am not engaged in any OR - I simply quote Gil quoting Muhammad. Now, aside from your most recent purposely disruptive edits, are there any constructive changes you would like to make to the article? Preferably ones that don't involve more attempted whitewashes? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up in order to explain to you the reason for 'policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation"' (which you, not I, brought up) thereby clearing up a misconception you had (that this policy belongs in the article). Regarding OR, your above posts show that you were constantly interpreting the quote. "are there any constructive changes you would like to make to the article" Actually, I have made constructive edits to the article, that you've failed to notice is a different problem.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Wherever possible, a summary from a reputable secondary source is preferable to a direct quote from a primary source, which is open to OR-related problems. Relata refero (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately in this case we've relied entirely on Gil, a reputable secondary source, for all of the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. We are quoting Muhammad, not Gil. Muhammad's letter is a primary source, where Gil would be the reputable secondary source.Bless sins (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we've only quoted Gil. I don't have access to Muhammad's original letters, do you? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, its a passage from a primary source. Find an interpretation in a reliable secondary source. Relata refero (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is present in the secondary source where it is being used in a discussion of jizya. We are taking this treatment of the letter from the secondary source without original interpretation. Arrow740 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, no. Gil is a secondary source. I seriously doubt Muhammad spoke English. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

An english translation of a primary source is still a primary source. Gil is a secondary source, but apparently we are quoting Muhammad's words, not Gil's. I tried to paraphrase Gil, but armon reverted me. Even Gil (on pg. 28) attributes the quote to a medieval Islamic source that is supposed to be quoting Muhammad verbatim.Bless sins (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The primary source is Muhammad's letter. Gil's book is a secondary source, including his translation of select parts of that letter. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rot. Find Gil discussing the primary source, and find a bunch of other interpretations of the letter as well. Otherwise you're producing OR by pushing a particular interpretation of a dubious quote. Relata refero (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rot" really isn't an argument. Gil is a reliable secondary source; find better arguments please. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Except that Gil doesn't offer the same interpretation you do. Gil never deduces anything about the penalty from the quote - you do. There is also another, separate, issue: Gil doesn't say the letter is notable. The fact that he quotes multiple letters goes to show any one of the letters is just one amongst many. I can understand why it's a good idea to quote one particular verse of the Qur'an in this article (because it is quoted repeatedly by scholars, and it is the only verse that deals with jizya). The same does not appear to be true with any of the letters.Bless sins (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't offered an interpretation, you have. I've just brought Gil's material. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are denying interpreting from the quote information about penalty if the jizya wasn't paid? I notice that you didn't offer to my second argument (i.e "There is also another, separate...").Bless sins (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that in the stuff about "penalty if the jizya wasn't paid" in the article; can you point it out please? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you interpreted the quote to derive 'penalties for failing to pay the jizya'. Can you please respond to my second argument, about the letter's notability.Bless sins (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a diff regaring a discussion on the Talk: page, not material that is in the article. Regarding the letter's notability, Gil says the letters are notable for a number of reasons, including being examples of the first references to jizya as a tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you said it no? It reflects your reason for placing the quote, no? Secondly, there are many "first" references to jizya as tax. including all of them will be detrimental to the article.Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reason for including the material is that Gil says these letters are the first examples of the use of the word jizya. Please quote the section in policy which states that "including all of them will be detrimental to the article". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) My argument extended beyond a single word. Find Gil discussing the primary source, and find a bunch of other interpretations of the letter as well. Relata refero (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the orders, but neither your one-word dismissals nor your commands are relevant. Gil is a reliable secondary source, that's what has been used. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't see Gil used. Thats blatant misdirection. And I'm not giving orders, I'm instructing you on how to remain within Wikipedia policy, as you clearly frequently need reminders. Relata refero (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review footnotes 45, 46, and 47. Please also review WP:CIVIL, which is policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because WP:CIVIL is policy that I used the euphemism "blatant misdirection".

I don't see Gil quoted in the main article. I see primary sources in the main article. As I said, that's OR. Find Gil interpreting the primary sources for us, or they come out, asper the core policies of this fine project. Is that clear enough for you? Relata refero (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, both accusing me of "blatant misdirection", stating it is a euphemism, and "instructing [me] on how to remain within Wikipedia policy, as [I] clearly frequently need reminders" are all egregious violations of WP:CIVIL. Please desist. Regarding the material taken from the reliable secondary source Gil, I think you have seriously misunderstood WP:NOR. Please quote the section in the policy you think is violated, and explain how the material violates it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You stated "Gil has been used." and directed me to a footnote citing a primary source used by Gil. That is blatant misdirection at best. I'm a strong defender of civility on contentious pages, but I'm afraid that there is absolutely no other way of describing your behaviour.

That you frequently need reminders is no news to anyone. I don't see it as any worse a violation than "seriously misunderstood WP:NOR".

However, it is considerably more true. The current, even washed down version of PSTS states: ". Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case, the interpretation is that the letters to Adruh etc. are relevant. Please produce that interpretation from Gil.

Now that I've looked into it further, please also substantiate that two primary-source letters quoted in a single source and not elsewhere are viable candidates for inclusion in this article. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time you have egregiously violated WP:CIVIL; please stop denigrating other editors, and instead use the Talk: page for its intended purpose, discussing article content. Regarding the letters, I have added the statement from Gil that explains their relevance. Please explain which statements in the article you think are an invalid "interpretation of primary source material" - and please be specific. If you have any other objections to the material, please quote the sections of policy which you feel they violate. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I think that your claims that WP:CIVIL is bieng violated are unjustified (if anything I could've made those claims when you accused me of whitewashing). It's best to reply to comments in a straightforward manner.Bless sins (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to ignore any further querulousness here, so don't bother repeating yourself on this page. Take it to user talk, if you continue to believe that this is not a waste of everyone's time.

About the actual business of this talkpage, I notice that now you have quoted Gil as saying that there are 'key words' 'including jizya'. Which are key words? How are they related? Why do we have to quote the entire letter? Are you not, by including the entire letter without corroborative secondary sources that the entire letter is relevant to jizya, creating the interpretation that certain parts of that letter refer to the subject of the article? That is a direct violation of the section of PSTS I have already quoted.

Please note I have already been specific several times. It is considered minimally civil to actually read what the other person is posting.

Other objections: please read WP:FRINGE. Relata refero (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Relata Refero, in the future, kindly restrict your comments to article content, not your opinions of other editors, in compliance with WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Now, on the substance of your statements, on what basis would you assume that the entire letter was not relevant to jizya? This seems like original research. In addition, I have asked you a number of times to quote the specific section of the policy which says we should only take parts of the letters Gil quotes, or perhaps none at all? Please note I have already been asked this several times. It is considered minimally civil to actually read what the other person is posting. Finally, on what basis to you make the claim that Gil's views are a "fringe" opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I've already quoted it. Several times. If you wish to continue to discuss user behaviour, take it to user talk, as I have already advised, and WP:TALK recommends, if you try reading it.

I want you to quote Gil discussing the importance of the entire letters or including their entire text is your interpretation of relevance, and thus OR. Clear? I make the claim that Gil's views are fringe if the quote is not repeated elsewhere. Relata refero (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And exactly where in the article do you find an "interpretation of a primary source"? I don't see any such interpretation, so you'll have to quote the specific words in the article that constitute an interpretation of a primary source. As for Gil, he's a respected academic writing in his area of expertise, published by a highly respected University press: on what original research do you base your claims that his views are a "fringe" view? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The placement of the entire quote primary source in this article is interpreting it as relevant. Is that clear? Please respond to that particular point, by indicating why the entire quote is relevant, or providing a source that indicates the entire quote is relevant; otherwise that is interpretation.

If the quote is not repeated elsewhere in the many studies published on this issue, I fancy that it represents a marginal viewpoint. Gil himself may not be a fringe scholar, but his theory may be outside the mainstream if not repeated elsewhere. Is that also clear? Relata refero (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, regarding the material from Gil you're saying there is not actually an specific "interpretation of a primary source" in the article per se, but rather that including the entire quote is, in effect, an "interpretation". Are you arguing, then, that we should only include pieces of the quote? If so, this would seem paradoxical, as including or excluding various sections of the quote would more reasonably lead to charges of "intepretation". Also, as far as your charge that Gil is "promoting a theory that may be outside the mainstream" goes, exactly what "theory" is that? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero might be trying to get at point that is an issue on Islam (and probably religion) related articles. People have a tendency to quote primary sources, which makes a point. For example by quoting a Qur'anic verse "God has put love and mercy between you and them" in the article Islam and Jews (or Islam and antisemitism) I'd be implying the Qur'anic commands Muslims to love Jews. However, I'd be ignoring the fact that this verse was not meant for Jews, therefore not relevant to "Islam and Jews".

Similarly nowhere does Gil say that the letters are exclusively on topic of jizya. Infact, Gil himself shows that the letters discuss many things are discussed, the "tax" being one of them. However, this article is not about protection, protector, letter of security etc. all things that are, according to Gil, discussed in the letter.Bless sins (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the letters are all about laying down arms, accepting dhimmi status, and paying jizya - exactly the topic of this article. Who is it that pays jizya again? Oh, right, dhimmi, people under "protection". Where is the term first used? Oh right, the letters outlining the jizya they must pay in return for being dhimma. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating analysis. However, could you please quote Gil on the subject, as your own analysis, while no doubt accurate, is somewhat beside the point? Relata refero (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose a compromise: we should put the letters into the notes section. I've seen on many articles that quotes are often put in <ref> format and included as notes. For example, consider Six_day_war#_note-4. It'd be quite inappropriate to include all these quotes in the main text, though all of them are from reliable sources. This is a example of the practice that when quotes get long they are put into references/notes section.Bless sins (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented your compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, it's realy not a good idea to have quotes anyways. Even you are opposed to it, when it comes to Zionism (see Talk:Zionism#Ruppin_quote). Its much better to paraphrase. Even if we have the quote we'll only have the relevant parts. None of Muhammad's policies is relevant to this article, except that in regards to jizya. We've already had the discussion, that his other policies (e.g. what Gil calls "dispossession") do not deal with jizya.Bless sins (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have quotes when people persist in misrepresenting what the authors have said. So, that's what we'll have to have here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so we'll quote only the relevant parts. This article is about jizya, and not the prophet Muhammad's policies in general.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gil explains it was a new policy and contrasts it with the old policy. We would obviously have to do the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet Gil says the only the new policy was relevant to the topic of jizya. Under the old policy, jizya was never collected.Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also you need to show evidence of misrepresentation. Quoting can't be a solution, else controversial article would consist entirely of quotes and nothing else.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a solution for everything, but it is a solution here, since you persist in misrepresenting Gil. Gil says that Muhammad's previous policy was "hard-line" and consisted of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation", but now that he was conquering lands populated by Christians and Jews, he realized that a "wiser policy" would be force them to submit, give up their armies, and pay the jizya. Your "summary" captures only a minor portion of that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation" had nothing to do with jizya. Incase you haven't noticed, this article is about jizya not "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation".Bless sins (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gil explains that the policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation" was replaced by the new policy of jizya. Gill thinks the two are related - as would anyone. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gill thinks the two are related." Where does he say that? He doesn't, that is simply your OR. Jizya came after the alleged policy, as Gil himself states, and can be found in numerous other sources. Bless sins (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we are to mention the previous policy, then we will, per NPOV, present all scholarly views (including those that show the treachery of the Jewish tribes, and their plots to assassinate the prophet). But, in anycase, you'd be hard pressed to find a scholar that relates those events with jizya - simply because they are not related.Bless sins (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gil relates the two by including them in the same paragraph, and stating that the jizya was a replacement for the former policy; your original research is not required - if you find reliable sources relating jizya to "the treachery of Jewish tribes, and their plots" let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So because "jizya" is the same paragraph with something, means that something is relevant? That's ridiculous! The truth is that jizya was instituted after the alleged former policy. And yes there are lots of sources regarding the "annihilation" of the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. "Gil relates the two by including them in the same paragraph" Gil never says "jizya" in the same paragraph as he says "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation". Infact he two are not even on the same page. The "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation" part is on page 28, while jizya is not mentioned until page 30.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The new taxes he mentions are the jizya. Please stop wikilawyering. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Face it, your comparison is far-fetched. First you deduce that "taxes" must mean jizya (even though under Islam there were other taxes like ushr, kharaj and some others). Then you try and link that to the prophet's previous policies, which Gil specifically says was different from the policy of taxation. You are trying to link topics that are pages apart (let alone in the same sentence) and that don't refer to each other. It is you who is trying to wikilawyer, and I'm getting tired of it.Bless sins (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no. We've been through this before, when you first tried to claim Gil wasn't talking about jizya. He's talking about jizya, and that's the paragraph where he compares jizya to the previous policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been through a lot actually, like how the material you're inserting is irrelevant. Again, all material must explicitly refer to the term "jizya". Isn't this what you demand from others? Why fall below those standards now? Sorry, but I can't accept this original research. (And btw, he never "compares" jizya with other policies, but merely state that prophet Muhammad, at two different points in time, had two different policies).Bless sins (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on this article. Gil does indeed refer to jizya, as has been established above. You've tried quite a few different ways of removing, expurgating, misrepresenting, and bowdlerizing that Gil quote, but it doesn't really stick, because Gil still discusses jizya, and notes that the policy of jizya contrasted with Muhammad's earlier policy of "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation", and no amount of wikilawyering and original research can get around that fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note this discussion is continuing in a section below. Users may be interesting in taking a look at the source in reference. Page 28 mentions the policy of "dispossession..." and nowhere says "jizya". Jizya in not mentioned until page 30.

Yes, page 30, where he explains that in the aforementioned letters on page 28 and 29 one finds the first use of certain "key words", including jizya. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or else`

That part is, as I noted above, obviously relevant. Arrow740 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jizye

The article should be merged into this one (with sources ofcourse). Because of its small size, a merger should not at all pose a problem.Bless sins (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits removing information as to whom the jizya benefited and what the consequences of not paying it are are simply whitewashing. Arrow740 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussions here is regarding the merger of jizye and jizya. I would appreciate it if you didn't follow me around just to make personal attacks.Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent whitewashing

I didn't know sectioning on talk pages was so important to you. Arrow740 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740, I have verified Lewis (1984), pp. 14–15 (I checked "The Jews of Islam" since that was the only publication from him in 1984) and he doesn't say what you claim he does. Either you have incorrectly referenced information, or you are fabricating it.Bless sins (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do have other sources for that material, but would like to use Lewis. Please provide his statements regarding jizya on those two pages. You have been claiming for days to have the very book. Arrow740 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you not me. If you claim Lewis says something, you provide the quote.Bless sins (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply asked you to help me verify material someone else had added and I forked here; you claimed you were in a position to do so. I will source that material from some other sources shortly. Arrow740 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the material was added by a user named "Arrow740". Isn't that you? I don't see any other user - except "Arrow740" - who has added this material.Bless sins (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He copied it from Pecher's massive rewrite of Dhimmi two years ago. I was never certain about half the references that chap and Usher used to claim. Relata refero (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, HE and Merzbow weren't much better. Relata refero (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Jayjg, according to the sources, the tax was levied, in practice, only on males, atleast for a period of time. Although this is true in theory, it was also true in practice, but later discarded. Thus, you can't say "theoretically" nor "supposed to be".

Also the Cahen quote is repeated verbatim below. Why do we need to duplicate sentences and repeat them?Bless sins (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It provides one major reason for the tax; the Qur'an's command to make the dhimmis feel subdued. Arrow740 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we say that according to the "X" and "Y" schools of law, jizya is so and according to "W" it is the other. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Choudhury

Why is Choudhury, Masudul Alam; Abdul Malik, Uzir (1992). The Foundations of Islamic Political Economy. Hampshire: The Macmillan Press a reliable source? ``Arrow740 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out his impressive resume.[4]Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is impressive. But he is not qualified regarding jizya. Arrow740 (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you see how much of economics he has taught? Is jizya and taxation not related to economics? Didn't you just add something about 'fiscal' oppression?Bless sins (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid he wasn't taught about jizya in his economics PhD program. Arrow740 (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? And I suppose you were in his class, taking notes diligently on every topic he was taught and not taught?Bless sins (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, he may have learned about jizya later on. Just because you've completed your PhD, doesn't mean learning stops. Infact, professors are engaged in a lot of research.Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The burden would be on you to prove that jizya was part of his program. He's being used as a source for Islamic law here. Arrow740 (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my last comment? A person can still learn a lot after the completion of PhD.Bless sins (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He is a PhD in economics, and wrote a book called The Foundations of Islamic Political Economy...surely this is indicative of reliability? And the one thing for which it is footnoted doesn't seem contentious; I've heard the general idea in at least one of my classes from undergrad and post-grad. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He's being used to relate statements from Islamic law texts only. Is the publisher an academic press? Arrow740 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the publisher of Rodinson's books an academic press?Bless sins (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when is whether or not the press is academic the deciding factor in reliability? Show me the policy.

What matters is that the author is a PhD in a related field. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the author should be a professor (who would naturally have a PhD), and in this case the author is a professor. Note, I sometimes make exceptions for exceptional persona.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hadith

What is the point of listing all the hadith that mention the jizya? Why are these hadith notable? Please don't say that all hadith are notable because there are thousands of hadith out there.Bless sins (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But only a small number that mention jizya. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10