Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What does the author of this article mean by "contract"?

The author is using the word "contract" in a very particular way, without explaining the prior assumptions s/he is making. Please read the wikipedia article "Duress" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Duress), especially the third section, on duress in contract law. It's clear the Dhimmi "contracts" were contracts made under duress (therefore not justiciable). Any conquered people who rejected their Dhimmi status would have been killed. We're not talking about two freely contracting parties. We're talking about conquerors dictating terms to those they have conquered. In other words, imperialism. This must be made unambiguous in the article.

The author claims that the massacres of non-Muslims at the end of the Ottoman Empire cannot have roots in their inferior Dhimmi status because, by that stage, the Dhimmi "contract" had lapsed or was lapsing. This is like saying that acts of white racism against blacks that occurred after the Emancipation Proclamation cannot have any roots in black slavery. The hundreds of years of discrimination and stigmatisation must have conditioned how Muslims viewed their non-Muslim inferiors. Surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesdelatour (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid

Why isn't there discussion here about the fact that this is essentially the root of apartheid? How ironic is it that the only article in wikipedia rather than south Africa about apartheid is about Israel, promoted by Israel's enemies, Arabs, who wish for Israel to be destroyed and ACTUAL apartheid (dhimmi) be restored? 08:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.2.196 (talk)

Insanely biased

This page reads like a pamphlet supporting the practice. It portrays dhimmi as having all their rights intact and being allowed to retain their cultural identity with the minor inconvenience of having to pay a tax. Deliberately misleading. Effectively taking away all the rights of 'People of the Book' is simply a very clever way of completely eradicating a culture. Being free to practice one's own religion and customs at home doesn't mean much if as soon as you step out your door you're at the mercy of the Muslim inhabitants of the country. Asia Minor, the Balkans and Southern Italy all had distinct, rich and advanced cultures of their own prior to Muslim occupation, very little of which remains today. And hey, what are the poorest, most strife-filled regions of Europe today? The problems in the Balkans and Asia Minor need little introduction, and southern Italy has remained poor for centuries while northern Italy flourished in every way. Curiouser and curiouser. The lives of Christians and Jews in Muslim-occupied countries were nothing resembling free, and I think it's time for the world to take a good, hard look at the legend of Muslim benevolence in Europe and the supposed moral superiority they enjoyed over their Christian counterparts, particularly with regards to Moorish Spain. We criticize the wrongs committed by the Romans, by Christians, etc, etc, so why has it become custom to turn a blind eye to Islamic oppression? All I ask is for someone neutral to edit this article, because right now it reads like an account of they way the Nazis described their concentration camps to the rest of the world during WWII; pleasant little towns in which Jews, gays, Romani and Catholics of Europe lived, and in which they sacrificed superficial liberties, but were still allowed to practise their culture and religion, in exchange for the protection of the German army. I can't be the only one who sees the logical parallels evident between the two.

I'm actually very much in agreement with the comments of a poster of Bulgarian descent in an earlier debate on this talk page. The victors decide history. We can't go back in time and talk to the Christians and Jews of Muslim Europe, and mainstream historical accounts of the period can hardly be trusted, because they will naturally portray the occupiers, the victors, in a positive light. Oral accounts from the mouths of dhimmi may not be considered an accurate source for an encyclopedia, but in reality, they can absolutely not be dismissed outright as mere 'whining.' Had life in the Ottoman Empire really been as peachy and great as this article suggests, the opinion of their occupiers of the people who actually lived under them would have been somewhat higher. Nobody claims to be oppressed just for the hell of it.

I am not anti-Islamic by any means; what I am against is all forms of oppression, and the repression and/or eradication of culture. Don't let revisionism hide the truth. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The advantages of "dhimmitude" for a principled believer in another religion are seen in comparison with alternatives: 1. hypocritical acceptance of Islam, 2. emigration, or 3. death. DCDuring (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the wiki pages about Islam being "insanely biased" is similar to that which similarly affects medical controversy pages. Firstly there is a problem that some (possibly well-meaning, possibly a paid massager) enthusiastic (to use a kind word there) person appoints themself as a sort of" owning editor" of the page, and imposes order on all those who intrude incorrectly as he sees it. Any disagreement with them soon gets defined as vandalism requiring banning etc.

But the bigger problem relates to the (mis)definition of acceptable content in terms of "verifiability". This is severely flawed both here and in the medical pages. In the latter, anything put out by the medical/institutional establishment is treated by the wiki "owning editor" of the page as being inherently "verified" by reason of the medical/institutional establishment having published it. By contrast even a major campaigning group publishing something on its own account is dismissed as mere unverified assertion by a biased party. The consequence of this is that the bias which exists in the censored medical literature gets even more exaggerated into a gross misrepresentation in wikipedia pages.

In respect of the Islam pages, we can see here that the "owning editor" of this page, Aquib, keeps asserting that content is only allowed if verified by means of authors having advanced university degrees, professorships, and being published by university presses. There's just one slightly vast problem with such criteria for admissibility in the hallowed pages of wikipedia. That is that the academic system is well-known to be 100% biased such that only those who toe the politically-correct "Religion of Peace" line are ever allowed to gain such accreditations. There are numerous so-called "Professors of Islamic Studies" but you can rest assured that they are all rigorously pro-Islamics with no questioning of the "Religion of Peace" thesis.

Thus by the supposedly respectable standards imposed by the owning editor Aquib, only pro-Islamic "Religion of Peace" material is allowed and any of the material that exposes this Jihad Denial of 13 centuries of bloody terror starting at Qur'an 59:2-7 is by those same standards obliged to be reverted out.

It is for such reasons that an alternative site called wikiislam was set up to tell the other side of the story.Idealiot (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many polemics here to justify a NPOV. Bat Yeor should never be cited as an authoritative source on anything, it's just not credible. MrOakes (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Myth of Dhimmitude

The section, "Myth of Dhimmitude," makes it seem like there isn't debate on the subject. Opinions on only one side of the debate are presented in the section. Also, the section relies heavily on 1 or 2 sources. So I put "POV" and "one source" tags on the section. ask123 (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's POV its clearly been vandalized by an Islamist or apologist trying to make excuse for this disgusting for treatment on minorities. Dhimmitude wasnt a myth Bachir Gemayel DID cite that in his speech.Miss-simworld ‎ (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Section "Qur'anic verses that support religious tolerance do not exist except for those taken out of context"

The section heading itself is a claim, not a description of the section's content. The statement "However 4 sentences later within the context of this quote from the Qur'an it states that "As to those who believe not...they shall be given over to the fire: They shall abide therein for ever." is the editor's personal commentary. Likewise the statement, "Although this reference is meaning that finally the Arabs and 'others' are finally blessed by God through the apostle Mohammad to be told that they need to worship Allah the one and only true God." is not a description of material from the cited source, but the author's personal commentary. The entire section is simply a tedentious and personal interpretation of the source material, and has no place in the article. O.M. Nash (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly vandalism, and I erased it. Mtijn (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"non-Muslims"

This page uses "non-Muslims" a lot to talk about those with dhimmi status. I disagree with this because not all non-Muslims can be dhimmis. I think there should be a section dealing on the status of non-dhimmis (if there is a status, if not then the lack of status) in Muslim countries. If anyone is well-read on it, please give it a try 93.107.7.191 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally, the pagans were treated differently and more harshly from the peoples of The Book (other Abrahamic religions). By the middle ages, dhimmi status was usually extended to almost all organized religions. In the modern world, all non-Muslims are more or less regarded as dhimmis. It is an interesting subject. Aquib (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dhimmis were given "protection", which meant that the Muslims would not simply massacre, forcibly convert, or cleanse them. Non-dhimmis had no such protections. I believe they were just massacred, cleansed, or forcibly converted leaving none left alive under Islamic rule. Should we make a mention of what happened to "pagans"? Even with solid RS's, I don't see how it's relevant to _this_ article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions re references in use

Hi I just looked up the first citation in this article and it does not support the assertions. Also, I see the article relies heavily on Lewis' 1984 work, which seems to deal primarily with Middle Eastern Islam vis a vis the Jews - is this giving a rounded picture re Christians and other dhimmi religions, also other areas outside the Middle East? And I understand Bat Yeor does not have an advanced degree in her field of interest, and is challenged in some quarters for POV issues. I haven't looked closely at this article yet, I just wanted to know if people watching this page had opinions. Thanks Aquib (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Bat Ye'or is not a suitable source. Lewis is, but if you can rebalance with other parts of the world and with relationships with Christian communities, that would be helpful. We could probably use Courbage & Fargues more. In my opinion the whole article needs restructuring, as it follows Bat Ye'or's line of argument too closely. There is scholarly doubt about when the Pact of Umar/Omar was composed, so it is not valid to imply that "dhimmitude" was a single concept from the foundation of Islam until the end of the Ottoman Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, thanks and regards Aquib (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute re Pact of Omar

There is a lot of material covered in this first paragraph, and I can see how questions might arise, but the material appears sound and properly cited - just from a quick read of Lewis 24-25. Going with Lewis p 26,27 and beyond we see these restrictions were taken from military necessity in the early days, and later formalized, with likely Byzantine and Sassanian precedents. Hodgson indicates uneven enforcement and attributes the whole as an unfortunate episode. I as yet have no evidence on that point.

Looking at the material, and the questions raised re references and specifics. I can say the entire section is totally consistent with Lewis as cited, with the exception of the last bits about Byzantine precedents (which are probably Tritton's). Lewis himself cites Tritton on the pp 24-25. The material is consistent with Hodgson. The weasel word at the beginning of the section is a close parallel of Lewis' own characterization as "so-called" Pact of Umar. Hodgson attributes the pact to Umar II, as does Lewis and presumably Tritton.

The point here being the authenticity of the letter purported to be from the Christian Syrians, and assented to by Umar I is in all likelihood a forgery. But the precedent it set was all too real.

The citations at the end of the paragraph do a good job of covering the material as written. With a bit of de-weasling it should hold up nicely.

So the question in my mind becomes does the objecting editor take exception to its conclusions?

Regards Aquib (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one observation at this point: we should minimise the use of Tritton because it is a very old source. If other sources agree then just use those. Apart from that, you seem to be using the sources in a very careful and scholarly way, thanks for that.Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree on Tritton. Thanks and regards, Aquib (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Happened across this today. If there are a large number of Muslims who beliefs are contrary to the research on this subject in the article, their perspective should get some bandwidth in order to preserve NPOV. I am not as yet familiar with the particulars regarding the pact of Umar from the Islamic perspective. Aquib (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find it useful to talk to User:Itaqallah who put in a lot of effort to get Islam to Featured Article. He's a real expert on sourcing relating to Islamic doctrine. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

doubtful that blasphemy was ever permitted in Islam

As per the edit summary accompanying my [flags] for improper synthesis on 7/18

(→Blasphemy: citations for encouraging speech in litigation, and academic freedom of speech, are indirectly useful. But there is no direct citation for freedom to blaspheme (as implied).) These two assertions, with their accompanying references are constructing a synthesis - original rsearch. They extend an nonspecific freedom of speech in court and an nonspecific intellectual freedom to include the permissibility of blasphemy.

We need a specific citation from a reliable source stating blasphemy was at these times permitted in Islam. Otherwise, I propose to remove the flagged text and prefix the rest of the section with a statement it was severely punished.

Aquib (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging sections and reorganizing the material

it is not my intention to remove any text or cause any misrepresentations during this process. If anyone should notice any irregularities caused by my section moves, please bring them to my attention. thanks Aquib (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition on enslavement

The Turks referred to in this section were Asian nomads used by the Abbasid Caliph for his personal guard. They were enslaved primarily on the steppes of eastern Europe and Asia, and purchased by the Caliph in order to have an independent apolitical force at his command. Having come from beyond the borders of the Caliphate and beyond the lands of Islam, they were not dhimmi. Any non-Muslim from the Dar al-Harb (lands of war) was subject to enslavement. Dhimmis were non-Muslims from the Dar al-Salaam (lands of Islam or lands of peace): ie the conquered lands. See Hodgson, V 1, 482-483.

Therefore while it is quite natural to consider this an example of the enslavement of dhimmis, it was not. Incidentally, these slave soldiers went on to rule Egypt and Syria, toppling the Abbasid caliphate along the way. Eventually the Mamluk dynasty arose from their tradition in Egypt; Saladin, from among their numbers retook Jerusalem from the Crusaders. See Hodgson V 2 p 266-267.

To the Ottoman Janissaries and administrators drawn from the Christian populations of the Balkans, this was indeed a form of enslavement, although it is noted there was little of forced conversion along this way and many of the families were more than happy to send their sons off in this manner. In this regard we also contemplate the enslavement of converted Muslims by the Sultan. Also among the Janissaries were purchased slaves (from dar al-Harb) and some voluntary converts from Christianity, in particular experts and artisans. It is therefore undoubtedly a form of slavery differing greatly from the modern concept. See Hodgson V 3 p 102.

The section is properly titled "Prohibition on enslavement", and while there are certain exceptions of a borderline nature, this is surely one of those cases where the exceptions go towards proving up the rule. Finally, owning slaves was actually quite common both in the lands of Islam and Christendom. Muslims, Christians and Jews, all counted slave owners among their ranks.

Aquib (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing references to dhimmi and dhimma from italics

While wp:mos (foreign words) indicates foreign words should be italicized, the word "dhimmi" appears to have become sufficiently well used in English to qualify as a borrow. Dhimma, although less familiar, is a closely related term. "Dhimmi" being the subject of the article, and consistency being a guiding principle, I propose to take all references to "dhimmi" and "dhimma" out of italics within this particular article. Aquib (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dhimma contract in modern world - Christian (Greek, Armenian, Assyrian) persecutions in the Ottoman Empire

With respect for the seriousness and sensitivity of the material regarding the Christian massacres, and relocations of populations, during World War 1.

It was the breakdown of the dhimma contract which led to these events. Turkey was at the time under a transitional government of a secular nature. The three populations identified and linked as separate genocides are considered one event by Courbage and Fargues: the expulsion of Christians from Anatolia as Turkey prepared to lose its empire. In addition, I do not have information on the "Mount Lebanon genocide" referred to in this section. There was, around this time, conflict between two Christian sects in this area of the world. As there is no source cited for the "Mount Lebanon Genocide", indeed for these three separate genocides, and it is presented in a manner inconsistent with its treatment by Courbage and Gargues, I intend to rework the material accordingly. Aquib (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Places of worship

This section contains many instances of uncited material, irrelevant material, and cited material that is inconsistent with Lewis and Courbage/Fargues. Assuming good intentions, and suspecting the section of having been heavily edited and reedited, nevertheless it needs help. Aquib (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ran into more problems than I expected. Aquib (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

reverted edit adding 4th reason (Muslim conquest) to list of reasons for the growth of Islam

This edit was not reverted on the merits of the information. It was reverted due to the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. This fourth reason was added to a list of three reasons that were in a book called "Christians and Jews Under Islam", so if someone goes to the book and looks it up, they will not find this fourth reason.

In order to add this fourth reason, I suggest the editor place it in a separate sentence immediately following the first three, and include a reference to a book that makes the same statement. A book by a scholar in the field is the best, and if the book is printed by a university press that is even better. A link to another Wikipedia article does not count as a source.

Aquib (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

policies applied to dhimmi populations in various times and places

Dhimmi rights and restrictions tend to cluster around a group of rules identified in the classic sources of fiqh, at least after the ninth century CE. This is true whether the particular rule of fiqh was influenced by the pact of Omar, the Quran, the Sunnah, ijtihad, custom and/or inherited sources from previous empires.

One cannot enumerate the restrictions in place at a given location and time, with respect to a primary source document, and generalize it to apply in all places at all times. And the article does make heavy use of some primary sources, particularly the pact of Omar. In some cases, these uses may be viewed as syntheses of conclusions or original research.

Aquib (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

forced conversion material re Maimonides removed

I flagged this paragraph for misstatements in July.

Per Lewis, Maimonides was forced to convert in Andalusia, then fled along with many other Jews and Muslims, to North Africa. From there, he reasserted his Jewish faith and made his way over to Egypt where he continued his work under favorables conditions. He was not happy with the situation of being a Jewish dhimmi, as evidenced by a letter he wrote to Yemeni Jews undergoing persecution, but he was allowed to work and made a good living. In Egypt, he was once called out for having recanted his Islamic faith, but he was well connected and survived the incident quite nicely due to it having been a forced conversion. All according to Lewis.

I do think Maimonides might bear a mention in the "forced conversions" section due to his historical importance, but his story is not unique.

As for the Jewish history of the clans in the Atlas mountains, most Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa can trace their origins back to Christian (or Jewish) ancestors. Again, according to Lewis.

Aquib (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

forced conversions NPOV, undue weight, questionable sources, irrelevant material

This section elaborates incidents of forced conversion in a way that makes them appear more widespread than they actually were (according to Lewis and Courbage/Fargues). It also includes material irrelevant to the point with children. It contains an orphan law in 1922 Yemen that appears quite controversial as to actual intentions. Please see my edit summaries on each of today's edits.

Not intended as a disrespect to an individual, but with regards to material included in the dhimmi article: The main source for much of the "forced conversion" material, Bat Yeor, was not a professor, nor did she hold an advanced degree in her field of interest. She did not publish from a university press. Nor was she NPOV, per Lewis 1984 footnote. Sources for religious material of a sensitive nature should be held to a high professional standard. Aquib (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy

This assertion from the Blasphemy section was corrupted and/or distorted:

Many dhimmis were executed as a result of accusations that they insulted Islam.

In fact, Lewis p 40 says they were not common, but they did occur.

Aquib (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy; Bat Yeor's assertions regarding group reprisals as a result of Blasphemy--removed from article

In addition to problems with Bat Yeor as an authoritative, NPOV source on this subject. The following problems with this assertion as listed in the article

• Misrepresentation by the WP editor. Bat Yeor makes this claim in several of her books, but there is no mention of violence, only the word "reprisals".

• In addition Bat Yeor's assertion is unsourced and, as far as I can tell, uncorroborated.

• Finally Bat Yeor is not specific as to the causes of the reprisals, the perpetrators of the reprisals, or the exact nature of reprisals.

Aquib (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

jizya tax - duplications and repeats of similar materials - emphasis, NPOV, undue weight

This is material I previously collected from different places in the article dealing with the humiliation of dhimmis during the collection of taxes. I am collapsing the subsections Humiliation of dhimmis during collection of jizya and Interpretations of jizya collection by jurists and commentators into the jizya tax section in order to remove repeats of similar materials, balance the coverage, and shift to a more NPOV. Aquib (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Article exhibits patterns of Middle-Eastern centricity, medieval centricity, and references to Pact of Umar as if it were a secondary source

As per my edits today in the Personal Safety section, but more generally through many areas of the article.

• Citing the Pact of Umar as the definitive source of fiqh regarding dhimmis is misleading, and it is original research - as an interpretation of a primary source.

• Notwithstanding the vast importance of the Middle East in historic terms, we cannot overlook India and the Malaysian archipelago. The articla contains generalizations that do not uniformay apply across geographies.

• The article emphasizes the "medieval" Islamic timeframe over the earlier and later periods.

I hope to be able to gradually address these areas of concern.

Aquib (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal safety, wp:undue, wp:NOR, wp:NPOV, subjective material

I am not disputing the dhimmis were in an insecure position, relative to the Muslim majority, in many times and places. Nor am I disputing dhimmis were often not permitted to bear arms. I am not questioning the validity of a section in the article named personal safety. My assertions with regards to this section are as follows

• Original research to cite the pact of Umar, I can concede the generalization with regards to prohibitions on the bearing of arms by dhimmis in the Middle east during early and middle periods. However we cannot use the pact of Umar as if it were a secondary source, or the definitive be-all and end-all regarding Islamic fiqh on the subject of the dhimma contract.

• In this section we find another list of massacres from Bat Yeor. I can only assume it is correct and exhaustive. Nevertheless, according to Lewis (who may be a bit overused in this article), persecution was "rare and atypical". This section leaves the general impression dhimmis lived in a constant state of terror. Safety and security are subjective terms. Important, but subjective nonetheless.

apologies, the list is cited as coming from Lewis. Otherwise, my assertions stand as written. Aquib (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Aquib (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The end of the dhimma contract and, more generally, restrictions imposed by dhimma vs violations of the dhimma

Again, with respect for the seriousness and sensitivity of the material regarding the Christian massacres, and relocations of populations, during World War 1.

First, these events occurred after the end of dhimmi restrictions and protections conferred upon minority populations by the dhimma contract.

Second, there are no citations given in the paragraph. The wikilink at the end of the paragraph is not an acceptable citation per wp:verify. The numbers used in this paragraph are inconsistent with those provided by other scholarly sources.

Not only the numbers, but the causes and accounts of events are disputed here. Indeed, there is more than one authoritative version of these events, bringing all related citations into question. This dispute cannot be resolved in the dhimmi article and does not rightly belong here. A mention and a wikilink to the main article would be more appropriate. Aquib (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, and more generally, the article fails to clearly distinguish conditions resulting from the dhimma contract as opposed to situations resulting from lapses in its enforcement.

Aquib (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

weasel wording

this article is full of weasle wording and attempts to make dhimmitude seem okay or acceptable, like oh yeah, it's just a tax in return for not having to do military service... but this isn't the case, it was an organised form of financial exploitation which formed the basis of a lot of muslim states. It was dehumanisation. It was belittlement. It was bullying. It was a way to make slaves. It was almost arbitrary power to do anything you wanted, it was a type of slavery, a muslim could just say "oh, he insulted the prophet" and the dhimmi was dead because the muslim can testify against a dhimmi and be believed but a dhimmi could not testify against a muslim, or the muslim could use the trapdoor conversion to kill a dhimmi and say that the dhimmi had converted and recanted.

Let's be clear, there's no 'just', there's no explaining away, there's no acceptability, dhimmitude was a gross human rights violation, a death by a thousand cuts, a state of torture and inhumanity.

Obviously there are some very partisan editors on this page, some deluded people. Even though Islam says it is right does not make it right. Slavery is wrong. Dhimmitude is wrong. And there's no point comparing it to Christianity and looking at Xianity in the worst light and Islam the best, sure bad things happen in every country, sure, but justifying murderous and gross behaviour on a misinterpretation of the man you consider holy does not make it right. If you were good people or real muslims you would condemn dhimmitude as wrong, not try to explain it, you would fight for the true meaning of muhammed - who saw christians and jews as equals and not the snivelling extra comma which evil viziers used to fund their slave empires and orgies and debaucheries and tortures and murderous blood lettings and inhumanities.

This whole page makes me sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.62.81 (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have moved your new section to the bottom of the page, where new discussions go. Aquib (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the accurate reference to Mandaean persecutions at the hands of Islam given in Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley's 'The Mandaeans', pgg. 153-154. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deseretian, you are changing material I put in the article that is sourced from a book by Courbage and Fargues. You should put your material in the article without editing the material I put in there.

Also, your book is about the Mandeans in Persia. My book is about all dhimmis in Islam. How can you cite a book about a certain people at a certain time and generalize that to make a statement about all dhimmis everywhere for 1000 years?

Aquib (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aquib, the book is not about Mandaeans in Persia; rather, it's about the Mandaean religion, which originated in Palestine and flourished in present-day Iraq and Iran prior to the Islamic invasion. The initial hardships of forced conversion and Dhimmi status were the result of Arabic-speaking Muslim invaders. Later, after present-day Iraq came to speak the language of the invaders, Arabic, while Iran (Persia)preserved its indigenous language, the Mandaeans were persecuted by both Sunni and Shiite Muslims who spoke Arabic or Persian. I'm happy to add references to the treatment of Zoroastrians in Persia -- by Arab and Afghan invaders -- or to the peace Zoroastrians enjoyed in India prior to the Muslim invasions of that subcontinent. I'm also happy to add references to the persecutions of the Copts of Egypt, and, of course, to the complete annihilation of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia. However, I believe the reference I have provided, namely one of a true minority religion, which none of us here espouses being cruelly persecuted by Muslims in order to force convert the infidel is sufficient to establish the well-known role of conquest in the spread of Islam. I have preserved your reference, by the way, so don't delete mine. I'm happy to have us take this up with an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deseretian, your edits have changed the meaning of material that comes directly from a) Courbage and Fargues and b) Bernard Lewis. You have left the citations in place and changed the meaning of the material. It is improper to change the meaning of cited material, as it misrepresents the source. Some of your sentences will fail verification. Also, you have introduced some wp:weasel wording. I would be interested in hearing some other opinions on your edits. Here is my opinion:

This edit deleted sourced material. We should not delete sourced material simply because we disagree with it. You have sources for your material, but your subject matter is not as broad as the sources used here. I have not yet verified the accuracy of your uses, and quality, of your sources, because you have not yet included the material in an acceptable manner.

This edit does restore the citation deleted in the previous edit, but it now gives the impression the three sources of conversion listed are agreed between Buckley and Courbage/Fargues. Does Buckley say there are three sources of conversion as listed? These are not Courbage and Fargues' three sources. Is this original research? It is a misrepresentation at least. It cites C/F for two reasons and omits their own third reason, and is a misrepresentation for that reason as well.

This edit adds a loaded preface to a point Lewis is quite clear on, paving the way for the subsequent insertion of your own (as yet untested) source in a favorable light.

So, while in principle you do have some valid material, your use of it overreaches the scope it was intended to cover, and is being applied in ways contrary to WP best practices. I don't think any of your contributions up to this point should remain in the article. If you would like to use the material in a way that is consistent with its purpose, you will find your points are already well covered in the article.

By the way, you deleted some material which, although unsourced, was easy to cite. It is more helpful to use a and ask for a citation, rather than delete the material (I have sourced and reinstated the deleted material). If we deleted every sentence that was not cited, there would not be much left in Wikipedia.

Aquib, you are clearly going to do all you can to obscure the truth. You have no right to do so. I DID NOT alter your cited material in a way that severely affected the source you added. You are rewriting this entire article on the basis of one work. Here are my two cents:

(1) You cannot possibly construe physical torture and summary execution as anything other than that: torture or death. How is that weasel wording?

(2) I have sourced two excellent books, both of which are tremendously broad in scope, that refer to the experiences of two unique faith traditions, Zoroastrianism and that of the Mandaeans. These books recount 2000+ years of history, and both have important things to say about the state of dhimmis post-Islamic conquest, and, more importantly, the reality of forced conversions in that process.

(3)I will restore my original wording, wording which preserved both your references (which I think are suspect) and mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquib (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at Buckley (2002) p 153-154 and I don't see support for your assertions of systematic persecutions and systematic forced conversions. I can see mentions of atrocities being committed, at various places in the book. Am I looking in the right place? Can you quote the text from the book? Aquib (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many references within Buckley, but I chose those two pages because they set up the historical continuity of the suffering under Islam. On page 153, you will find the following quote:

"[the writer of Mandaean documents]offers information about Muslim rulers. Sometimes a scribe may add descriptions about the state of affairs in the Mandaean community and in the province where he lives. There may also be heartrending words about the persecutions and sufferings."

This information, which regards documents with 1800 years of verifiable scribal transmission, where the persecutions and sufferings under Muslim rulers in mentioned, sets the stage for the information contained on page 154:

"...recalcitrant Mandaeans were arrested, tortured, and killed (eyes burned with red-hot irons, body parts cut off, decapitation and impalement being among the usual assortment of atrocities). A ganzibra [Mandaean holy man] named Adam, having lost his right hand to torture...managed to make a copy of those prayers with his left hand."

I thought this was sufficient to show that life as a Dhimmi under Islamic law was not great; it was terrifying. Also, it's important to note that these types of sufferings, as mentioned in page 153, were a common feature of the commentary of these aged documents -- the sufferings cannot be said to have only occurred under one ruler or after European colonization (though Iran was never colonized)!

Perhaps I should have also included the citation I gave earlier for Writer (page 43):

"Upon the annual collection of the tax the scenes presented at the homes of those [Zoroastrians]unable to pay it were terrible to witness. Some, to save themselves from torture, and as the last resource, gave up their religion and embraced the faith of Mahommed, when they were relieved from the payment of the tax. Others, who would not violate their conscience, abandoned their homes to escape the exactions of the tax-gatherer. These determined individuals, even when they escaped, had always to leave their wives and children behind them."

There are more excellent quotes from both books that touch on the violent nature of Islamic "conversion" of Dhimmis in both books. Here are some that you might find particularly enlightening:

Writer (page 40):

"About a century and a half after the Arab conquest... AD 820[,] there was a Mohammedan governor of Khorasan, named Tahir...his fanaticism against Zoroastrians and their scriptures knew no bounds."

When this Tahir learned of the continued existence of other scriptures among the Zorastrian Dhimmi he "issued and edict that every Zoroastrian should bring to him a man [about 14 pounds] of Zoroastrian and Parsi books in order that all these books might be burned, and he concluded his mandate with the order that any one who disobeyed should be put to death."

Here's another gem from Writer. Some Zoroastrians fled to Hindu India and were accepted by the local king of Gujarat in AD 936. The king accepted them freely on the condition that they explain their religion unto him and take up the local language. The community flourished for hundreds of years. However, "A Muslim sultanate was established in Delhi in 1206, and in 1297, its army set out to conquer Gujarat...'the citizens were taken unawares...The Muslims began to kill and slaughter on the right and left unmercifully, and blood flowed in torrents'." (Writer 23)

On page (23), writer relates that centuries later, after several ups and downs:

"The Parsis remained a marginal group in India and were subject to the vicissitudes which affected the land...the reintroduction of the jizya...meant that Muslims were once again given precedence over other Indians. Violence occasionally erupted as a result, and the case of a Parsi [Zoroastrian] weaver from Broach, one Kama Homa, whom a Muslim called a kafir (unbeliever), led the Parsi to retort spiritedly that it was the Muslim in fact, who was the kafir. The local magistrate when called to rule on the case, declared that no infidel was permitted to so cast aspersions on a worshipper of Allah and, therefore, Kama mus embrace Islam or face death. He chose the latter and was beheaded in 1702."

Note that the Zoroastrians lived as a truly protected minority only when they were not ruled by Muslims (and thus Dhimmis). Note also that violence, torture, and the threat of harm were clearly used to spread the word of Allah. Does this mean that all Muslims descend from forced conversions? No. But it is important to note that the first centuries of Zoroastrianism, Mandaeanism, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. did not involve ANY forced conversions. For you to categorically deny the role of militarized invasions followed by extreme violence to the remaining non-Allah-believers in the spread of Islam is amazing.

We've covered Iraq/Iran and India, but let's add the Punjab to the mix. Patwant Singh, in his book "The Sikhs", records the following:

"[T]he tragic news of his mother and two younger sons, Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh--separated during the retreat from Anandpur--was brought to him [the Muslim ruler] at Jatpura. They had been betrayed by a servant who had offered them shelter and then alerted the agents of the governer of Sirhind, Nawab Wazir Khan, who had them arrested and imprisoned in Sirhind fort. He offered the brothers inducements to convert to Islam, but to his astonishment the two--aged eight and six--refused. He then ordered them to be bricked up alive. When only their heads and shoulders remained above the masonry they were again asked to convert, but they refused. Extricated from the tomb-lik structure they were produced before Wazir Khan, who, enraged by their unrelenting stand, ordered them put to the sword. On hearing the news, their grandmother died of shock." (Singh pages 59-60)

I'm not looking to start a huge edit war with you. I think this article is disgracefully biased. If a child with no education were to read it, he or she might think that being a Dhimmi wasn't always all that bad. It was bad. It was horrible. To pretend that Dhimmis were largely created because the majority of their former coreligionists voluntarily converted at the same time that Muslim armies with weapons and malice *happened* to be invading is absolutely disgusting.

I want it clearly referenced in the beginning of this article that war and subsequent violence with the aim of conversion played a major role in the spread of Islam. The only place where this was not the case, to my knowledge, was among the Cham of Southeast Asia and some Chinese minorities. To deny it altogether goes against all known records, and it is the last blow to those who died for their beliefs when confronted with such violence.

I will therefore rewrite the whole section, and it will include both your (questionable) apologist refernce (singular) and my three references -- to THREE completely different faith traditions in what are now 4 countries -- will also be included. If you really want to accurately portray the truth of the spread of Islam and the subsequent role of dhimmitude in that spread, you'll have to accept the facts as they stand. If you're really hear to obfuscate and pretend that being forced to convert was all just a game, then I promise you that I will continue to research and provide facts for truth-seekers to read. Deseretian (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've been involved in this article on various occasions over the last few years. I saw your post, Deseretian, on Editor Assistance, and the response you got. I hope you'll continue to engage in discussion here. I have a couple of points to make here. One is that the Courbage & Fargues book is a very useful source for the article and there is no problem in using it to the full. The other is the one about forced conversion. We already have an article forced conversion where this is discussed. In my opinion this article should concentrate on explaining the status of non-Muslims in the Islamic world from about 900, when there is sufficient literature, to the 19th century. Some sources, for example Bernard Lewis, deal with this whole period and with a large geographical area, others deal with specific times and places. Both kinds of sources could be valid. We are looking for history texts, written by academic historians, from any country, ideally in English but potentially in any language. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not asking for an additional article about forced conversion, I'm just demanding that its existence be included in the article about Dhimmi status. My references focus on the years 1200-1900, so that should fit your desires regarding source material. The Zoroastrian source was published by the University of American, and I have checked it out from a library at a research university. The Mandaean reference was written by Dr. Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley and published by Oxford. The Sikh reference was published by Doubleday and serves as the best non-technical overview of Sikh history (of which I am aware).

I am deeply offended by the tone of this article, and I cannot believe that it is allowed to stand as is. Note that this is not an article about Islam; I am not trying to focus only on Islam's violent origins (and present) -- this article is about segregated minorities who suffer under Islamic rule! Yet, if one reads the intro as written, it seems that Islam was largely benevolent to the Dhimmi underclass and that they became Dhimmis because Islam spread peacefully among their neighbors. It's just not true, and that's the case whether you're a fan of oppressing others or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a section on forced conversions in this article.

Buckley looks like a sound reference, but I have my doubts about Writer. Writer's work is not published by a university press, it's published by a press named "American University Press". I'm trying to locate the citation on page 43, but I can't get hits on the keywords I would expect to find using Google Books.

In any case, I am all for improving the article, in accordance with WP policy.

Aquib (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you agree with the important role of these violent acts, why do you explicitly avoid them in the list of ways in which Islam spread? Regarding Writer's scholarly work, you can read a short review of it and its interest to Church-State scholars here (if you have subscription or your academic institution has a subscription): http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/1/164.full.pdf+html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources that are free and commonly available are more suitable to Wikipedia.Aquib (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Deseretian (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Deseretian, according to Courbage/Fargues, forced conversion did not play a major role in the spread of Islam. And according to Bernard Lewis, discrimination was common but persecution was rare and atypical. These books don't claim violent acts did not occur, and the article does not make this claim either.

There were many religions, including Mandaens and Zoroastrians, encountered by Islam. Some were treated better than others at one time or another. All dhimmis were treated better or worse, by various rulers and groups of Muslims, in different places and times. None of this is disputed by the article.

I agree with Judith that other sources and points of view are welcome in the article. And I am happy to discuss these matters in a civil, non-accusatory tone. If you intend to change the basic premise of the article, as stated above, then you will need high quality sources directly supporting your assertions. You cannot build a case based on emotional accounts of individual incidents, no matter how many you find. It is not about what you or I personally believe, it is about the quality and verifiability of our sources. And it's about how directly these sources support our assertions.

I understand you are new to Wikipedia; I have not been here long myself. We all have a point of view we need to be aware of, and control for, in order to minimize its effect on our work. If I may make a suggestion, I would ask you to read the article in its entirety and also review Wikipedia's content policies. It will make it easier for us to discuss the issues involved.

Aquib (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquib: Muslim protection of non-Muslims is exactly like Mafia "protection" of shop-keepers. Requiring someone to pay you money in exchange for you refraining from violence against them isn't some wonderful ethical advance. It's mean-spirited, petty extortion and when it comes in the guise of religion, it is beneath contempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.9.102 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of dhimmis

I have questions about the material added to this section.

The first new sentence

These opinions notwithstanding, Dhimmis fared differently at different stages of the Islamic conquest.

is presumably not drawn directly from Abu Dawood's translation of the Quran. It is therefore an introduction, by the editor, to the material contained in the rest of the paragraph. For this reason, the neutrality of the wording was suspect to me, as it could be construed as the editor's own conclusion regarding the validity of the preceding paragraph. It also presumably refers to the entire period of time an area is under Islamic rule as "stages of the Islamic conquest", unless the paragraph only refers to the period of time when an area is conquered - which is a much narrower subject than the time period implied by preceding paragraph. For these reasons I have changed the first sentence to read

However, dhimmis fared differently at various times and places.

which is not necessarily optimal either, but at least an improvement. Aquib (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The second new sentence

During Muhammad’s own life, would-be dhimmis suffered violent fates: the Jews of al-Nadir, who were ostensibly qualified to be dhimmis, were attacked and expelled in 626 AD/CE; the Jews of Qurayzah were raided by Muhammad himself in 627 AD/CE; and the Jews of Khaybar were killed off in 629 AD/CE.

implies that either the translator of the cited "Koran", or the editor, is under the impression the dhimma contract protects dhimmis from the consequences of conspiring against and taking up arms against Muslim forces, as was the case with the "Jews of Qurayzah and Khaybar". The use of the phrase "would-be" further clouds the issue: whose characterization can this term be attributed to? An Islamic scholar, historian, or comparative law expert?

Although I have not yet been able to access pages 7-8 of Dawood's 2006 edition, I seriously doubt the cited material is representative of the source. However, if the source is the Quran itself, this material is original research using a primary source. Aquib (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dawood translation is considered to be one of the best in English. It was done by a native (Iraqi-born) speaker of Arabic, and has been revised continuously over the last fifty years. He provides a simple time line of Mohamed's life in the introductory material. The wording you find offensive was used to link the relevant information to your ridiculously biased paragraphs. Who said that the two sources you've chosen are accurate? Nothing I've read supports their thesis, but I am apparently helpless (much like the Dhimmis) to block such pernicious lies. However, I do not accept the following as remotely valid:

"implies that either the translator of the cited "Koran", or the editor, is under the impression the dhimma contract protects dhimmis from the consequences of conspiring against and taking up arms against Muslim forces, as was the case with the "Jews of Qurayzah and Khaybar".

How can you state categorically that the Jews deserved to be massacred? Is that our job, to blame the dead for their deaths? I am simply reporting the facts. If you want to soften the wording without removing those facts, then I'm sure there's room for compromise. But I won't allow you to call one of the most famous translations of the Koran questionable. You even acknowledge these events on the talk page, but you justify them. The reader deserves to know that non-Muslims were killed from the beginning. If you want to add that the Jews deserved it, fine. The reader will be able to decide how he or she feels about the matter. Since it appears that you do not have a problem with the validity of the reference (you acknowledge the murders), I will remove the questionable notation. I am fine with you adding that Muslims believe they deserved it. I cannot allow you to impugn the veracity of the source when neither you nor I disagree on the truthfulness of the events cited.

Readers of this article need to know two things at the beginning of this article: (1)that Dhimmis were created after their lands were conquered through violence and that many of their coreligionists converted because of force (physical or economic) or were killed; (2)that being a person of the book (i.e. dhimmi after conquest)did not mean one was protected from much.

There are points later in the article that allude to this, but you have (re?)written the intro in a biased way -- hiding behind your sources (which are light on specifics) -- that would lead the casual reader to believe that the primary factors helping the spread of Islam do not include violence -- bull! -- and that the majority of forced conversions and massacres postdate the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I have provided the reader with the truth: people of the book, Jews, Mandaeans, Zoroastrians, etc. have suffered horribly and often under Islamic rule since Mohamed marched out of the desert. It is true that being Dhimmi meant that you weren't immediately killed all the time, and I think the article goes to great lengths to make that point, but the intro reads like an apologist's pamphlet for the merits of Islam.

Also, regarding the Zoroastrian and Mandaean sources: these are excellent, rigorously researched sources. They are also among the only extant sources on these minority groups that recount stories of these groups' sufferings as Dhimmis. Sadly, Western scholars were more interested in their ancient documents than their lives. It is offensive, in my opinion, to pretend that these sources do not accurately portray these communities.

And you ought to be doing your research in a library! I have all of these books in hand in my office at the university. Google book searches are not a valid method of searching for high-quality source materials. The fact that you aren't familiar with any of this literature, yet you don't hesitate to question it or delete it, is more than a little suspicious. 02:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 169.231.110.74 (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your reply indicating Dawood's Koran pp 7-8 will support your assertion:

• During Muhammad’s own life, would-be dhimmis suffered violent fates: the Jews of al-Nadir, who were ostensibly qualified to be dhimmis, were attacked and expelled in 626 AD/CE; the Jews of Qurayzah were raided by Muhammad himself in 627 AD/CE; and the Jews of Khaybar were killed off in 629 AD/CE.

However I do see a willful misuse of a source.

Please indent your replies for readability, and leave my signature as the last sentence in my replies. Thank you.

Aquib (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

LEWIS (1984) IS AMAZINGLY BIASED

The Lewis book is not a general survey of all dhimmi; rather, it is specifically about his interpretation of the Jewish experience. Many of the pages cited in this article (such as page 17) do not even explicitly claim anything. (Lewis uses qualify modal verbs when contrasting treatment under Byzantine rule with that under Islamic rule, but he gives no specifics.)

If Bat Ye'or is not allowed as a reference, why is this acceptable? There is a review by a Jew from an Islamic country that argues against this book's pro-Islamic bias. I think this reference either needs to be relegated to a minor role, removed altogether, or augmented by other references that offer an alternate analysis. Deseretian (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Lewis is a well-known Armenian Holocaust denier. The deaths of over 1 million Christians at the hands of Muslim authorities between the 1890s and the early years of WWI is not small thing. Though Lewis is a recognized scholar, that does not mean his work is considered uncontroversial. He, in fact, is controversial enough to have been brought to task for his public attempts to hide the Armenian genocide. If he is to be sourced here, it cannot be within a framework that is built solely on his opinions. Deseretian (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lewis is one of the most distinguished historians of the 20th century. His works are reliable sources, no doubt about it. They may have biases but that does not rule them out. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with "no doubt about it" -- I have plenty of doubt. But I do agree that there is much that is true and worthwhile in "The Jews of Islam". It is true, however, that he is a very controversial figure, and it is not too much to suggest that the HUGE number of statements based solely on Lewis's 1984 work be balanced by other views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.105.139 (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We are working within Wikipedia rules about sourcing. You really do need to read them through thoroughly (WP:V, WP:RS) and you might also like to see how they are handled in top-quality articles, such as Islam. You are very welcome here as a newcomer - our collaborative editing mode may be new to you though. No-one is going to get involved in discussions about the pros and cons of "dhimmi" status itself on this talk page, because that's not the point of the talk page. To get back to topic. Lewis has been discussed at great length in the past and the consensus has always been that his book is the best full-length treatment, although of course it relates to Jews rather than Christians or other groups. Any or all of us may have any number of disagreements with his outlook; that is of no relevance whatever. Of two books that you have added: Buckley is published by Oxford University Press, no problem whatsoever with it as a reliable source. As with all sources, we must reflect it accurately and not cherry-pick to advance a particular point of view. The book by Writer on the other hand is from a purported "American University Press". This is not a mainstream publisher. Please don't suggest such texts again, because that would be time-wasting. This post may sound negative, but my purpose is to re-orient the discussion towards improvement of the article and to help you with effective editing. Did you want to edit some less controversial articles while you are learning the ropes? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Judith.

Aquib (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deseretian, please stick to the subject and try to follow the rules. Your use of sources up to this point does not meet the standards, or follow the guidelines, for acceptable contributions.

Also, please do not reformat other editor's citations until you have more experience. The citations you have added could be improved by ensuring at least one instance of each cited edition contains the title, the full name of the author, the publisher, the publication year and the page numbers.

Aquib (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Judith and Aquib,

The Zoroastrian reference is one of the highest quality -- it was not cherry picked. The scholar who wrote it did so on the basis of postgraduate research, and it is kept as a primary source in the religious studies holdings of the University of California, Santa Barbara. To suggest that it is not up to Wikipedia's standards is beyond ridiculous. University Press of America is a serious publisher of high-quality scholarship in the Humanities (here's the link: http://www.univpress.com/), but you would know that if you had looked into it.

I agree that we cannot decide on the truth of the matter, but I do not agree that other can 'cherry pick' their references and omit differing references of high quality. Regarding Lewis: I agree that he is a well-known and capable scholar, and I would never try to remove reference to him; however, I do take issue with the idea that a consensus of sorts removes questions regarding Lewis's impartiality and merits as the SOLE source for most of the claims in the current version of the article. Deseretian (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This needs a bit of unpicking. I'm not saying - no-one is saying - that Lewis is impartial. That's not what we're looking for in a source. Then, using one writer as a sole source for a point. We usually only require one source for a point. If you find another good source that offers an alternative view, then both views should be presented. That's the bread-and-butter of Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith,

That sounds very fair. I was told not to alter anything the other contributor had written, so I assumed I wasn't allowed to add other viewpoints within his paragraphs. I have placed a plea on the editor help page regarding the unfair questioning of the high-quality Zoroastrian reference I provided. It seems strange that I am told that all sides are welcomed, but only Oxford-published references I provide are allowed. Deseretian (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can add points within paragraphs. What you shouldn't do is to introduce new material that breaks the link between a statement and its source. That really messes up the quality of the text. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To say someone can have vast scholarly knowledge of a subject, yet still miss the essentials, is Lewis to a T. It would be like citing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called the Holocaust a “myth,” as a good source on Israel since he is also president of a country, after all that must mean he knows something. And Lewis publishes books and has a PhD and lives in Europe, which must also make him an expert. Here's what I find problematic about Mr. Lewis' scholarship:

His focus is overwhelmingly on the Ottomans and Turkey and then generalizes his observation to all Muslims, as if they were all the same. He is constantly arguing that the Muslim world is eager to adopt Western style democracy and that “many” Islamic countries (read: Tunisia or Morocco)can be reformed into something approaching the values of the West. These are opinions that seem to be somewhat questionable. If this article were content to use his work as reference simply for Ottoman Dhimmi that would be one thing, but to cite him as “evidence” anywhere else in the Muslim world is also problematic.

Let's not even get started with his Armenian Genocide denial; he is slightly more poetic about Armenians than Mel Gibson is regarding Jews but it's not what I would call balanced or insightful. There's a lot of “of course Ottoman Turkey was simply putting down traitorous Tzarist agitators who just happened to be Armenians” in his writing and “of course there was nothing sinister in the Relocation Orders of the Young Turks that killed 1 million of Ottoman-Armenians,” because, after all, Bernard Lewis says all that is just a “gross exaggeration by an Armenian Diaspora eager to rekindle old wounds” and who are we to argue with Bernard Lewis? Like I say, he's Mel Gibson with a PhD.

What I find curious about this argument that being a Dhimmi wasn't being a slave is that if someone went into the Wiki articles about the American South and its slave populations and tried to argue that slavery was actually somehow morally justified, I would hope their point of view would be edited out. And yet here we have a very long argument in this article doing just that. But of course I don't cite Bernard Lewis every other sentence so who am I to claim to be balanced and fair? It's articles like this that make Wiki highly problematic when it comes to scholarship. Himeyuri (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I find some of your remarks about Muslims to be offensive. Please try to address the issues in a civil manner. I doubt Lewis lives in Europe, he is a professor at Princeton as far as I know. I doubt his research is based primarily on Ottomans. Perhaps there is a half-truth in your statement though, as the records from the Ottoman empire are a vast treasure trove for researchers in Middle Eastern history. Aquib (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of dhimmis: "Violence, or the threat of violence"...

In Treatment of dhimmis, we need page numbers supporting for the citations in the following sentence:

Violence, or the threat of violence, played a significant role in Islamic interactions with both soon-to-be and long-time dhimmis across the Islamic world, including present-day Iraq and Iran among Mandaean communities,[11][page needed] in Iran and India among Zoroastrian communities,[12][page needed] and the in the Punjab, in present-day Pakistan and India, among the Sikhs.[13][page needed]

Once those have been provided, I can evaluate the citations.

However, beyond page numbers, I have the following concerns

• The assertion Violence, or the threat of violence, played a significant role in Islamic interactions with both soon-to-be and long-time dhimmis across the Islamic world is apparently supported by citations of histories specific to Mandaeans, Zoroastrians and Sikhs. Per wp:nor, one cannot support an assertion applying to Islam in its entirety by citing references dealing with individual communities. I mean this as no disrespect to the communities named, but rather as an observation regarding the validity of the citations. The editor appears to draw a questionable general conclusion regarding Islam as a whole by means of a synthesized extension of the sources.

• If indeed all these sources directly support the assertion made, then we can discuss the reliability of the sources and the expertise of the authors with regards to the dhimma compact as applied across the whole sociocultural complex known as Islam.

Aquib (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will reword the opening to avoid any hint of original research. However, you err in demanding specific page numbers--this is an introductory paragraph making general claims about whole groups and, as such the WHOLE works, each of which deals solely with said groups, is being referenced. You will need to read the whole book (as you should anyway before removing citations or casting aspersions on the authors and content) if you want to evaluate it.

I will also replace the material you removed. Deseretian (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the editor providing the material to include page references. Try to avoid referencing "whole works". It doesn't fit readily with Wikipedia methods. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikipedia did not follow standard academic style. In academia, one mentions whole works (whether articles or papers) when mentioning generalities (the experiences of entire religious communities in this case)before providing individual page numbers in subsequent paragraphs, as I have done. Are you sure that Wikipedia's policy does not allow such structure? If it is the case, I suppose I could include ALL page numbers in each book that cover times when these communities were under Muslim rule (i.e., I'd have to include most of the pages in each book). Deseretian (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing a Wikipedia article is not the same as writing an academic essay. We need to be sure that readers can verify statements (although they may have to visit a specialist library, buy a book, or pay to download a paper). So we include page numbers in order to help readers and fellow editors to navigate to the appropriate pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing: Additional concerns regarding edits to "Treatment of dhimmis"

In addition to concerns I have already expressed regarding this section:

Violence, or the threat of violence, played a significant role in Islamic interactions with several soon-to-be and long-time dhimmis across the Islamic world, as in present-day Iraq and Iran among Mandaean communities,[12]

• The dhimma contract is not currently in force in Iraq and Iran.

in Iran and India among Zoroastrian communities,[13]

• What period of time does this segment of the sentence cover?

and the in the Punjab, in present-day Pakistan and India, among the Sikhs.[14]

• The dhimma contract is not currently in force in these countries.

Do these sentences refer to the dhimma and dhimmis, or relations between Muslims and non-Muslims generally? We seem to have gone off-topic, blurring dhimma and other forms of intercommunal relationships; blurring timeframes and geographies.

To continue, further down in the section:

However, these views are not universally held, and the role that violence played in the history of forced conversions among many other faith groups, including non-Christian and non-Jewish groups such as Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, and Sikhs, is remembered by those communities.

I would put a here, but I expect it would be deleted without provision of a suitable reference, as none of the materials being used by this editor make statements supporting such generalities. It is another generalized conclusion of the editor based on synthesis of sources.

Mandaeans, who practice baptism by immersion, were drowned in their own wells or had their eyes and limbs removed.[20] Among the Zorastrians, young girls were regularly

I would also ask for a citation as to the regularity of such drownings, kidnappings and rapes. I have no expectation at this point I would receive such, as my prior requests have been deleted, explained as a synthesis of sources, or returned as suggestions to read the books.

kidnapped and raped before being forcibly converted, and adults were subject to death upon refusal to convert.[21] Among the Sikhs, the last Guru’s sons, ages 8 and 6, were murdered by the local Muslim ruler upon their refusal to convert to Islam, an event which ultimately ended the line of human Gurus.[22]

These are all abhorrent and inexcusable incidents which are beyond the pale of Islam, or any of the other religions listed on this talk page, as far as I know. But they are incidents; anecdotes. They are not, as listed, an acceptable replacement for evidence as to how frequently they actually occurred. They do not contribute to the quality of the article, and they are not encyclopedic in nature. They are emotional appeals, intended to repulse the reader (as they repulse me), and serve as a substitute for facts. As regrettable as they are, they have no place in this article. Their inclusion gives undue weight to their frequency of occurrence, in spite of a lack of specific, high quality references as to their relative frequency. In addition, this material does not distinguish between those acts committed in violation of dhimma and those sanctioned by it.

For these communities, theories which relegate forced conversions and other persecutions to the end of the Ottoman period do not match up with history.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see a supporting citation for any of the material in this section, with the possible exception of the atrocities listed above.

In summary: All the recent contributions to this section by this editor are poorly researched and supported. They are primarily a set of conclusions drawn by an editor to advance their own particular POV, with little apparent regard for WP policy, or indeed for the facts. This is a clear case of tendentious editing.

I also find this regrettable, as there is probably useful material in some of these books that will not make it into the article, since it does not coincide with the contributor's personal agenda.

I will revert all the edits to this article made by this editor, until such time as a good faith effort is made to follow the guidelines which have been repeatedly explained, or until they gain the proficiency needed to contribute in a constructive manner.

That's my position. Other comments are welcome.

Aquib (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert all edits by this editor without consideration. If the edit makes no useful contribution, then do revert it. I think we need to post on ANI. It is tendentious editing in my opinion, but the editor may be able to learn how we work Itsmejudith (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good approach, thanks Aquib (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I willl await arbitration by others; however, I will continue to work to remove the bias in this article. The Mandaeans were (and hope to be again) official Dhimmis. The Zorastrians were and are Dhimmis. India is not a Muslim country, so the Sikhs of present-day India are not Dhimmis, but the Mullahs of Pakistan have recently come out and ordered other Muslims NOT to conduct acts of violence on the Sikh minority, and it is possible that they would have qualified for Dhimmi status at other times.

Your reference to anecdotes and isolated incidents is disingenuous, at best. These are persecutions that typified the experiences of the entire groups. The books I referenced go into great detail regarding this. Also, I wish to point out that I originally only wanted to add the following: Violence was one of the principal ways in which Islam spread and dhimmi status in no way protected groups from frequent persecution and forced conversion after the initial violent spread of Islam.

The references I've cited are of high quality, and I will reinsert them shortly unless I see an unbiased voice here who is willing to use these references in a different, bu acceptable manner. Deseretian (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And you're insistence on statistics from an era and culture that did not keep them is ridiculous. I think that "All the recent contributions to this section by this editor are poorly researched and supported. They are primarily a set of conclusions drawn by an editor to advance their own particular POV, with little apparent regard for WP policy, or indeed for the facts. This is a clear case of tendentious editing" is an accurate appraisal of your work in this regard. Deseretian (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources in "Treatment of dhimmis" section

Even though I have had all these citations explained to me before by Deseretian, I went to a nearby research library today, to have a firsthand look at them. They do not support the assertions made in the accompanying paragraph. As a result, I have removed the paragraph quoted below.

• Violence (in the form of military attack, forced conversion, or coerced conversions) also played a significant role in the spread of Islam, both during the initial Islamic conquest and during subsequent centuries; dhimmi status did not consistently protect groups from violent forms of forced conversion.
  • N. J. Dawood (2006) “The Koran”, 50th anniversary edition, pages 7-8
  • Buckley (2002), p. 153-154
  • Buckley (2002) “The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People”, pages 6, 153-156
  • Patwant Singh (1999)"The Sikhs" pages 59-60<
  • Rashna Writer (1994)"Contemporary Zoroastrians: An Unstructured Nation", pages.25, 43, 60-62

The other editor's citations do not support the above assertions. I have said this before, and explained it in a variety of ways. To the other editor's credit, however, there have been substantial efforts made to improve the expression of this sentiment in a way consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For this reason, I will set aside the history of these edits, and again attempt to address the kernel of the issue involved in as clear a manner as possible.

Bernard Lewis states that discrimination was common against dhimmis, but persecution and violence were rare and atypical. Courbage/Fargues states conversion to Islam by dhimmis came about primarily through a) spiritual and economic motives b) intermarriage and c) asymmetric population growth. These assertions are practically verbatim representations of the authors, taken from the respective books.

• Buckley states the Mandaean priesthood was taken in a cholera epidemic. There are mentions of atrocities and also benevolence on the part of Islamic rulers. The book does not appear to be a text on relations between Muslims and Mandaeans. The introduction discusses persecutions of the Mandaeans by their former Persian rulers, and also a history of conflict with the Christians. The cited pages do not state that significant conversions of dhimmis to Islam occurred as a result of violence.

• Singh discusses Awrangzeb's pledge to protect a Sikh enclave if they would leave a city, and how they were attacked after they left the city. It also discusses the sentiments of one Sikh regarding how the Islamic prophet Muhammad would have felt about this, and how Awrangzeb had deviated from Islamic principles. The cited pages do not state that significant conversions of dhimmis to Islam occurred as a result of violence.

• Writer's work is not available at my library, nor is it available at the UC Berkely library. Columbia has two copies. The New York library has one copy for reference only at the 42nd street location. I have been afforded an explanation of this citation by the editor before. I do not plan to purchase this volume, nor am I planning to travel to New York any time soon. The cited pages do not state that significant conversions of dhimmis to Islam occurred as a result of violence.

• Dawood's Koran translation lists two events involving Jewish tribes that revolted against the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It is an introductory timeline, and the events are covered in one sentence apiece. These Jewish tribes were not dhimmis. There are reasons for this fact I will not elaborate on. If they had been dhimmis, their revolt would nullify the dhimma contract. The cited pages do not state that significant conversions of dhimmis to Islam occurred as a result of violence.

Having said this, I am certain a thorough read of Lewis and C/F would render supporting material for a statement such as the following.

• At times, the positions of the dhimmis were insecure. Massacres and episodes of forced conversion, while rare, did occur.

The above sentiment is covered over and again in the article. The plight of the dhimmi, the forced conversions and the massacres, are all in this article. These incidents are well known, and documented by many reliable sources.

That these atrocities were "significant contributors to the spread of Islam", as claimed by the other editor, is not in the article. A high quality, secondary source has not yet been introduced which directly supports this more expansive assertion. ♦ Aquib (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:EAR

(Continuation of dialogue conducted on the WP:EAR page. Perhaps editors can reach a consensus or a compromise here.)

I have added two paragraphs among the other contributors paragraphs. He and another contributor, neither of whom apparently have access to a research institution, have unfairly questioned one of my references because it was published by the University Press of America, which is one of the more important publishers of monographs from the Humanities and Social Sciences (link here: http://www.univpress.com/aboutus/index.shtml). Though I am new to Wikipedia, I am not new to scholarship, and I wonder who has the authority on Wikipedia to dismiss scholarly works. I have a degree in a social science from Berkeley, an MA and a C.Phil. in Linguistics from another University of California, and will receive my Ph.D. in June of next year. All of my references come from my own collection of high-quality works or from the University of California library system. None of my additions are original research. If these references are to be dismissed, I would like to know why and by whom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I dismissed University Press of America too quickly. I'm still not sure of its status though - it isn't a member of the Association of American University Presses. Happy to discuss this with the OP and would welcome any other contributions to this specific question or to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Judith, I found a short review of Writer's book in the Oxford Journals of Church and State, so the book should be OK, although I too still have doubts about the publisher. Aquib (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an academic press, not a university-operated press. I am concerned by the fact that anything I add is deleted by Aquib. My references were not to isolated incidents but to the experiences of whole communities at all stages of Islamic expansion. The current article begins in a way that omits all views to the contrary and all references to other experiences. Note that only peaceful means are listed as the main ways in which Islam was spread (as per Aquib's biased reference). Note also that the contested section ends with allusion to the Armenian genocide being the result of the LOSS of dhimmi status. I find this disgusting, but I have scrupulously avoided all reference to the sufferings of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I just remembered another high quality reference from Ethiopia that I can use to add the Christian experience, if need be.

It is not true that any of these groups' experiences can be thrown out from the article because of a time period: the Mandaean experience covers the last 13 centuries of Islamic dominance in the region, and the same is true of the Zoroastrian experience. The Sikhs only arose in the 16th century, so the time period is not the same, and I'm not pretending that the Sikh experience is representative of early dhimmitude; rather, I added it to drive home the conflicting accounts of Islam conversion practices through violence (the conflicting accounts being one that dismisses violence as a major factor until Western colonialism, i.e. Aquib's references' view, versus the vast majority of all other accounts that I have read of specific group experiences.)

I would like to simply see the following added (as one or two sentences): "Violence (in the form of military attack, forced conversion, or coerced conversions) also played a significant role in the spread of Islam, both during the initial Islamic conquest and during subsequent centuries; Dhimmi status did not consistently protect groups from such violent forms of forced conversion."

I would then like to add all the references I now use behind this statement. I feel that such a paragraph would balance out these introductory paragraphs. However, as long as Aquib continues to delete anything I add (is this his article alone?), I will continue to include the specifics. Deseretian (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deseretian, you have stated the pages you are citing do not directly support your assertions, but are rather examples in support of your own conclusions. Nevertheless, I will check your references this weekend, with the exception of Writer, which I cannot locate and may have to buy. It seems like a waste of my time and money. If I understand your arguments on the talk page, you are misrepresenting your sources and inserting original research in the article. You cannot arbitrarily generalize the plights of individual communities, no matter how unfortunate they might be, to reach a conclusion about a larger, more complex issue. For example, I cannot cite books on the "Love Canal" and "Three Mile Island" disasters, as much as I might want to, in order to draw a general conclusion on overall American environmental policy. I could, however, probably locate a secondary source that does just that.

Why are you seemingly unable to locate a reliable secondary source that directly supports your assertions? Aquib (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lapses in the protection of religious minorities after the end of the dhimma contract

The wording here seems incredibly coy:

With the end of the dhimma contract, various approaches have been adopted to deal with the protection of minority rights in place of traditional sharia law. Some of the results, such as those experienced by Turkish Christians and Jews during the early 20th century CE, have been disastrous, although their extent is still debated.

OK, I click on “Turkish Christians” and it takes me to the Armenian Genocide link. So why not use “Ottoman-Armenian Genocide” instead? Also, what about the 50,000 Ottoman Kurds who were Christians? Or the 500,000 Ottoman-Assyrians? These are all good examples of what happens when “the contract” fell apart.

Saying things like various approaches have been adopted and then not citing any is, as they say, bad scholarship indeed.

Also, the word “disastrous” implies something “very, very bad” so why not say what that was? 1 million Ottoman-Armenians dead is, indeed, disastrous. 50,000 Ottoman Kurds and 500,000 Ottoman-Assyrians is also disastrous. After all, Genocide is, putting the term mildly, disastrous.

Of course, if you are coming from the point of view none of that happened (since Lewis says it was all hogwash who are we, non-Lewis apologists, to say otherwise?) then why use the word “disastrous”?

Either go into some detail as to why the editors picked these words, cut them out or get rid of the whole section since, as someone looking for information on this subject, this isn't very helpful. Himeyuri (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The events in question occured after the end of the dhimma contract in the Ottoman empire. They are outside the scope of this article. The subject is extremely contentious, and there is no need to have that dispute raging in the Dhimmi article. The link takes the reader to the article where the subject is dealt with in detail. There is a fine line to be walked here. Deleting the mention of these events does not seem appropriate. Debating these events in this article does not seem appropriate either. If you have comments on these events, I suggest you make them on the other talk page. Aquib (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination against dhimmis

This article appears to systematically minimise the discrimination against these people. It would be useful to have more coverage of:

1. voting rights.
2. rights to hold political office.
3. rights to hold government office.
4. right to be a king, right to be a queen of the country.
5. rights of marriage between and within religions.
6. relationships between men and women outside marriage, or between those of the same gender or uncertain gender.
7. restrictions on trade (bans on sale of certain types of goods in public markets and other open trading in them, bans on certain types of transaction, like those involving interest or insurance.
8. restritions on public conduct (clothing restrictions for muslims, applied to non-muslims)
9. rights under the law, such as to fair trials (such matters as testimony being systematically regarded as of lower quality than that of others)
10. reduced property rights, for example reduced penalties for theft of haraam property or differing financial rights for males and females (inheritance, support of males by wealthier females and vice versa).
11. rights to hold legal offices including being a judge or lawyer.
12. the general application of the religious practices and laws of one religion on those of other religions.
13. effect on freedom of speech, both on religious and non-religious matters.
14. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains many other areas where it appears these people may face significant restrictions and seems to provide a useful and broadly internationally recognised template for areas that should be covered.

At present the point of comparison seems to be that it's better than being murdered. Most things are better than being a murder victim. Jamesday (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We are taking mainly about the Middle Ages here. There were no voting rights anywhere, as you probably know. There were no kings or queens in the Islamic world. If you want a sensible comparison it would be with Europe in the Middle Ages, where there are very many parallels. In fact, I believe that after about 1200 the Catholic church modelled its restrictions on Jews directly on those operating in the Islamic world. Later the Christian world became much more severe, instituting pogroms, expelling Jews and even those who had converted to Christianity. The sumptuary laws regulated clothing in both areas, and for the religious majorities as well as for religious minorities. But there are few or no sources that directly make the comparison, thus we can't include that stuff. Comparing dhimmi status with the post 1945 Universal Declaration is anachronistic. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Much of this is historic but this article is also widely linked from current articles related to Islam. No need for comparisons, simple statements of what is and is not accepted, perhaps in different places, is sufficient. It's for the reader to decide how to view the facts. Dmimmi status exists today, so it wouldn't be anachronistic to compare it a current list of topics, like the one in the Universal Declaration. Jamesday (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

----

Jamesday, Bernard Lewis emphasizes that comparisons must be made carefully. It is easy to distort a comparison between the practices of one system and the ideals of another. It is also easy to distort the practices and ideals of one age by comparing them with those of another age. - Aquib (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I suggested some possible topics and a widely accepted international human rights standard to use as a guide. I agree that the cultural context matters, but we should be describing the differences so readers can form their own views about the cultural differences. I assume that there may be some areas where the treatment of dhimmi could be better than that expected in say China or other countries. And perhaps worse in other ways. But first the information needs to be present, so people can compare the systems in an informed way, if they choose, and see how the cultures differ. You may have a perception, perhaps mistaken, that simply stating facts would cause Islam to be looked on badly. Better to assume that I and others are also able to appreciate the differences between cultures than to try to conceal what you think might think would be viewed negatively by some. A news story from CNN or the BBNC would be entirely acceptable as an information source and broadly accepted international standards are surely acceptable as a list of topics to cover. Unless, of course, the objective is to censor, not inform. Jamesday (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has opinions. I suggest you review the guidelines for discussing and editing articles, if you are new to this. Aquib (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with making comparisons between cultures, and between different eras. But the one comparison we can and should make is this: What was the status of dhimmis vs. Muslims? Every notable difference showing inequality between Muslims and Dhimmis, should be made clear. Are we in agreement about that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Walker Arnold

Anyone have an opinion on the use of Arnold's work in this article? His book has recently been cited in support of the discussion on conversions in the article. It is somewhat dated (ca 1911?), but seems to be good quality material, if I can go by his bio and credentials. Aquib (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very relevant. Scythian1 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading a little at a time, but haven't yet got a good feel for the scope of the book. Does it cover all Islamic civilization or is it more specifically about, for example, Islam in Arabia and India? Does it cover all eras of Islamic civilization? Aquib (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not in favour of using scholarship that goes back so far. This is from experience of history articles that touch on national identity. The norms of research were so different then. Perhaps later scholars have referred to his work? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and its a shame. It appears to be thoughtful, if somewhat enthusiastic, work. So far it's quite interesting. But it's 100 years old, and he just couldn't have had access to the resources available to more recent researchers. There should be more recent work built upon this; and there may very well be, even if in an indirect manner.

A quick skim shows the book is cited by other authors in the 40s, 70's, 80's, 90's, and even 2004. I don't see any recent major works using his book for support, not a surprising discovery due to its age. Some of the citations are in the context of "Victorian attitudes". Some are quotes. Some citations are from works on the Far East, which I cannot as yet explain.

An interesting find, a thread to pursue if one had the time and inclination.

Aquib (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Happened across a thick, sturdy 1974 reprint on the shelf at my library, just a few books down from H. A. R. Gibb's Mohammedanism: an Historical Survey. Perhaps this particular subject has not as yet received much attention from the academics. Aquib (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Lewis's full-length treatment of the Islam-Judaism dimension of course. If Arnold is mentioned as an example of Victorian attitudes we can't simply use it as if it were recent scholarship. Unfortunately. Thanks for looking this up. Perhaps some of the later works that mention him will be useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point regarding Arnold's work having appeared in an article on Victorian attitudes is well taken. Should we move to revert the material from the article? Aquib (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DoneAquib (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zakat vs. Tzedakah

I added a very brief mention of Tzedakah on the article.

"... tzedakah is seen as a religious obligation, which must be performed regardless of financial standing, and must even be performed by poor people; tzedakah is considered to be one of the three main acts that can annul a less than favorable heavenly decree."

Aquib reverted my change claiming that Tzedakah is "voluntary", which is totally false. Since his reason for reverting my change was false, I re-added my change.

Now, before we get into an edit war, I thought I'd put this to the group.

Jews were being double taxed. They were paying their own religiously obligated charity tax _plus_ being forced to pay Jizya.

Thus it seems that if we're going to specifically spell out that Jews were exempt from Zakat, it's critical to mention that instead of the Zakat, they were already paying their own religiously required charity tax.

Thoughts? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What source discusses this? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was using the Tzedakah article as a reference. But it uses, among other things, Judaism 101 as it's references. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm

As far as "double taxation" goes, dhimmis were only charged once for "residence in return for taxes" as far as I know. They were allowed to practice their religion. If that religion included a charity tax, that would fall under their religious practices. But I have other reservations about comparing tzedakah to zakaat, as per my response on my talk page.

If you want to compare Tzedakah to Zakaat you will probably need good sources in order to avoid the appearance of original research. The reason I say that is because a comparison is reality quite complicated, and difficult to limit.

For instance, I agree Tzedakah is religiously obligatory, but how is it assessed? How is it collected?

• Historically, it was the duty of the Muslim community to collect the Zakaat according to a set formula.

How was Tzedekah distributed?

• Historically, again, it was the duty of the Muslim community to distribute the Zakaat according to a set of rules.

In Islam, there is voluntary charity known as Sadaqah.

• What is the Jewish equivalent of Sadaqah?

While Tzedakah is obligatory, it seems to be distributed and apportioned as a matter of individual conscience. In many ways, it is more like Sudaqah. It is, in effect, like Sudaqah rather than Zakaat.

This is not a comment or a judgement on Judaism. It is a consideration regarding the comparison of certain aspects of the two religions within a very narrow context. We need reliable sources for this statement that Tzedakah is equivalent to Zakaat in the context of taxation under the dhimma contract.

Aquib (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you have a source stating Tzedakah is a "tax"? Hodgson V1 p287 refers to Zakaat as a tax. -Aquib (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we would need more explicit sources than that. Our article Tzedakah is written from primary sources, though with a text in the "bibliography" that would seem to be entirely appropriate. Appropriate for an article on Tzedakah, that is. In order to say anything about it in this article we would need a source that makes some kind of link between that and dhimmi status. Taxation is discussed carefully by Courbage and Fargues. If there is another dimension to it that they miss out, then we are looking for a work of similar status in order to add it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The main point here is that, as far as I can see, the Tzedakah is never paid to a non Jewish ruler or charity. Zakat and jizyah were both taxes, not just religious obligations like Tzedakah. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Zakat ever paid to a non-Muslim ruler or charity? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys are right in at least one thing, Tzedakah is probably not a "tax". But they key point as I see it, is that the article as it is written makes it look like dhimmis and Muslims were on equal ground in terms of how much they were legally and religiously required to pay. At least in terms of the Jews, that is just false. Jews were being forced to pay double.

And, as this is an article about the dhimmi people. Anything notable, which impacted their lives, would seem to be on topic, whether or not it was decreed by the Islamic authorities.

But, there's another take on it. The article header makes it clear that Jews were "excused from specifically Muslim duties." Thus, it is quite possibly implied that dhimmis were not required to pay religiously decreed Islamic charity; no more than they were required to fast for Ramadan.

We don't specifically point out that Jews didn't have to fast for Ramadan, do we? Why not?

Why doesn't this article contain a list of every Islamic religious doctrine that Dhimmis were free from?

Thus, perhaps the better solution to help balance the article could be to remove both the mention of Tzedakah and the specific mention that they were "exempt" from paying Islamic charity. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I think you're forgetting that everything has to be sourced. The article doesn't contain a list of every religious doctrine that dhimmis were free from, because the books on the subject haven't approached it in that way. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob, concerning your question: "Is Zakat ever paid to a non-Muslim ruler or charity?", answer is of course: never. That's why USA Muslims couldn't allege their zakats when dealing with the IRS, or claim they are "forced to pay double" :). Today, zakat is just charity; many centuries ago, it was the main tax system in the Islamic world. So the problem is about non-Muslims beeing charged with the jizia. You need to explain that there was jizia for them, but not zakat and not military service, two related heavy obligations it'd be absurd to omit. And the reason is of course religious: zakat and jihad are not appliable to Christians or Jews more than fasting during Ramadan or peregrinating to Mecca. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the mention of Tzedekah because it is not a tax. There is a detailed discussion of taxation in this article; a discussion which is incomplete and misleading when we omit the fact dhimmis - Jews, Christians and other dhimmis - did not pay the Zakaat tax. This fact is well documented, for example, Hodgson V1 p 270. Aquib (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Potentially relevant articles

I have found references to two articles that might be relevant:

1. Pratt, D. "Muslim-Jewish relations: some Islamic paradigms", Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Volume 21 Issue 1 Pages 11-21. 2010

1. Shenoda, MM. "Displacing Dhimmi, maintaining hope: Unthinkable Coptic representations of Fatimid Egypt", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 39 Issue 4. Pages 587-606. 2007

I haven't got hold of either yet though. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Only the electronic versions are available at my university library, and I would have to enroll in order to get access. One of these days I guess I'm going to have to get electronic access to these subscription journals. -Aquib (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Propose merge. Dhimmi and People of the Book are perhaps not exactly the same concept, but they are near enough to cover in one article. And I think the resulting article would actually be more informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support May take a bit of finesse, but well worth the effort. The two concepts overlap so much I can't see benefit in separate articles. Haven't read the "people" article yet. Whichever text survives such a merger, I suggest the resulting title would be "dhimmi": The contractual basis of the relationship applied to all "people of the book", and in some cases, it also applied to others whose status as "people of the book" might be disputed. Aquib (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. "People of the Book" includes, e.g., Christians that doesn't have any covenant, or even any contact point, with an islamic ruler, while dhimmis were only non-Muslim religious minorities under the rule of the caliph. People of the Book, according to the definition, exist today. The dhimmah, on the other hand, disappeared: e.g. current governments don't collect zakat from the Muslims and jizia from the non Muslims; they rather rely on much heavier income, sale and foreign trade taxes for everybody. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the "People" article. It is interesting, and could perhaps support an extended discussion of the subject within the "Dhimmi" article. However it is very short on citations, and seems to have difficulties in its description of Buddhism; where it may have confused some aspects of Hinduism as Buddhist. Perhaps I am not familiar with certain aspects of these religions, but the discussion of Buddhism seems wrong to me. The discussion of various sects and post-Islamic Abrahamic religions under the Dhimmi section looks promising, but again, lacks citations.

The concept, and the phrase, "People of the Book", so far as I can tell, are only used and discussed within the context of dhimma. As such, the phrase, and the underlying contract, still exist as legal theory. True, there are few remaining examples of their implementation. But the phrase "People...", and the underlying contract "dhimma" are inextricable.

Aquib (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Against merge. These look to be two different concepts. "People of the book" (ahl al-kitāb) is a scriptural term from the Qur'an which predates the dhimma system. "Dhimmi" and ahl al-dhimma are part of the later apparatus of Islamic law. Adpadp (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hadith translation

Rethinking the translation of the hadith:

"من أمن رجلا على دمه فقتله فأنا بريء من القاتل ، وإن كان المقتول كافرا"

(Declared authentic in Al-Albani, Nasir al-Din (1987). "Hadith#6103". Ṣaḥīḥ al-jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr wa-ziyāyadatuhu (3rd ed) Al-Maktab Al-Islami)

Suggested translation: "Whoever gives man an assurance of protection for his life and then kills him, Then I'm clear/quit of the killer (or free from the killer), even if the victim was a disbeliever"

Could someone please verify or improve the translation ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'm free from the killer" doesn't make much sense, maybe it's meant to say "I'm blameless in killing (him)"? "qātil" can be a present participle meaning "killing"; you'd normally expect it to read "... min qātili-hi" rather than "... min al-qātil" but this might be an archaic usage. Benwing (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)