Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Rights the dhimmi did have

As someone trying to learn more about dhimmi, I'm finding it very difficult to draw a comparison between the status of dhimmi and the status of other religious minorities in the middle ages. Rather than requesting a special "comparison section", which would be beyond the scope of this article... I'd like to see clearly and succinctly stated rights that dhimmi did have. Economic rights, protection from violence, jobs that dhimmi could hold (education? translators? craftsmen? engineers? artisans? farmers? what?) ...

The overall tone of this article is comparing a pretty old institution with modern liberal institutions. That makes this article useless for most other intents and purposes (like comparing them with other countries at the same time, or other countries before that time, or simply understanding what life for a dhimmi was like in the middle ages). I'm sorry, but whoever wrote this article has really severely missed the point of wikipedia as an informational source, rather than a huge set of value judgments. (Like "inferior". Inferior to what? If I changed the what, would dhimmi be considered "superior"? Don't bullshit me. Just tell me, straight up, what rights dhimmi did or didn't have. I'll make the comparisons of inferiority and superiority myself.)

You people are lousy writers and researchers.

130.179.234.116 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mostly. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with his reader. Alas, discussing Islam-related affairs is much too politicized. 62.163.6.54

When to revert

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

So, everyone! Please remember that reverting is a last resort.

Redundent Sentence & Lead Clean-Up

Forced conversion, while not the norm, played a key role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia where Shi'a Islam is dominant. I was going to move this sentence from the Lead to the Forced Conversion Section. But I found that this was allready in the section. Forced conversions occurred mostly in the Maghreb, especially under the Almohads, a militant dynasty with messianic claims, as well as in Persia, where Shi'a Muslims were generally less tolerant than their Sunni counterparts.[58] Also, the section goes into more detail. Therefore, I believe that the original sentence is redundant and should not be included in the article.

The intro should touch on forced conversion as it did. Arrow740 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for what you are saying? If you want to write about Forced conversions, there is a seperate article for that. I'm reverting to my edit—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.242.13 (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Ref Arrow's comment. It is a minor part of the article, not a major part of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.242.13 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2007

Possible Solution: You can write a second paragraph and include this as apart of that paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.242.13 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2007

Edit By Merzbow: Hey, I liked this edit. Concise and it fit in the Intro. Good Job.--67.175.242.13 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a fan of keeping article leads small; this article in particular has had an ongoing problem with it. - Merzbow 06:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

one-sided, ahistorical, and clearly anti-Muslim

this article is hardly PC. I suppose that writing an article on the status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule in English requires that you rely on at least slightly biased sources, but Bat Ye'or is rabidly anti-Muslim and she is cited all over this article. There can be no pretenses of disinterested scholarship here. Most of the "factual" accounts of this article are isolated and mischaracterized events presented in a way to portray a consistent ill-treatment of religious minorities and to shock the reader. Telling is the fact that these are not the accounts of Muslim historians translated into English, rather they are orientalist scholars bent on portraying Islam in a negative light by selecting choice bits of arabic works and passing them off as a survey of Muslim sources. Despite these mischaracterizations of isolated events, none of them add up to Nazi genocide of Jews or South African apartheid or even the Spanish Inquisition, yet the editors of this page find it appropriate to approximate a thousand years of "protected status" (my preferred wording) to about a decade of genocide. It's completely illogical. The article should be rewritten completely to not include anything from Bat Ye'or. Even Bernard Lewis, often criticized for including anecdotes of Islamic history that do not portray Muslims negatively, is clearly biased, and should not be included in an encyclopedic article on the topic. At the very least, a subject as politically charged with such differing historical accounts as this should have as many historical accounts written by people with pro-Muslim agendas as historical accounts written by people with anti-Muslim agendas (Bat Ye'or & Bernard Lewis). Oizfar 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Following section about Bosnia and Herzegovina found directly on wikipedia describes a number of changes placed upon native Bosnian's that describe dhimmitude conditions that led to a "drastic impact on Bosnia's population make-up." I have quoted this website in the following paragraphs.

The Ottoman Empire had already started its conquest of Europe and posed a major threat to the Balkans throughout the first half of the 15th century. Finally, after decades of political and social instability, Bosnia officially fell in 1463. Herzegovina would follow in 1482, with a Hungarian-backed reinstated "Bosnian Kingdom" being the last to succumb in 1527. Christianity had been in place since the first century, and numerous artifacts and objects from the time testify to this.

The Ottoman conquest of Bosnia marked a new era in the country's history and introduced tremendous changes in the political and cultural landscape of the region. Although the kingdom had been crushed and its high nobility executed, the Ottomans nonetheless allowed for the preservation of Bosnia's identity by incorporating it as an integral province of the Ottoman Empire with its historical name and territorial integrity - a unique case among subjugated states in the Balkans.[6] Within this sandžak (and eventual vilayet) of Bosnia, the Ottomans introduced a number of key changes in the territory's socio-political administration; including a new landholding system, a reorganization of administrative units, and a complex system of social differentiation by class and religious affiliation.[3] The Ottoman empire was Muslim.

The four centuries of Ottoman rule also had a drastic impact on Bosnia's population make-up, which changed several times as a result of the empire's conquests, frequent wars with European powers, migrations, and epidemics.[3] A native Slavic-speaking Muslim community emerged and eventually became the largest of the ethno-religious groups (mainly as a result of a gradually rising number of conversions to Islam.

70.109.94.110 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Charles M.70.109.94.110 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is shamefully PC

With all due respect to scholarly intercourse, Dhimmi is one of the most horrible and damaging concepts developed by humankind. As a philosophy, Dhimmi is not different from the Nazi's view of everyone else as untermensch, and South African's apartheid. The only difference is that dhimmi has existed for over 10 centuries and has damaged numerous people and civilizations. Comparing to this, the Nazi Aryans and the aparteid are just short blinks.

I come originally from Bulgaria, one of the Christian countries that existed and presevered for 500 years as part of the Ottoman empire. My grand-grand parents were dhimmis. Believe me, you've got it all wrong.

Bulgaria is a 1,300 year old country with rich history and culture. It is the birthplace of the Cyrillic aplhabet and much of the Orthodox Christiandom started there. All of this ended when the Muslims came.

There were MASSIVE forced conversions to Islam, which affected between 20% and 30% of the population (about a quarter of the modern territory of Bulgaria is still populated with the descendants of those people, who are still Muslims). Where do you think the Muslims in Bosnia and Albania came from? The vast majority of those were converted to Islam by force. In any of these countries you can still hear a large number of folk songs and tales that tell about the time of people were forced to "become Turks" by converting to Islam.

For the majority of the population, there were few choices. "Immigrating" away from the lands controlled by Islam was not an option - once you were counted for tax purposes, "running away" was a crime. People were hunted, cought, and beaten and shipped back as slaves. Living as a dhimmi meant living as a second-class person who can never feel safe or protect his wife and children from any action by any Muslim.

The prolonged existence as dhimmi under Islamic rule is one of the most damaging things that can happen to people. Take a look at the map of Europe - the poorest, worst adapted regions on that map, from Spain, through Sicily, to Albania, Bosnia and Bulgaria are all regions that have spent hundreds of years as dhimmi under Islamic rule. While most Eastern European countries have recovered completely from the communist rule in less than 20 years, the damage caused by Islam is still there hundreds of years later.

In your attempts to keep everyone happy, you are rewriting history.

Quoted directly from wikipedia to give background on Bulgaria, see above, and the dimmi conditions imposed on the balkans under Ottoman Empire siege and rule. To the victor go the spoils, cultural genocide. An interesting way to spread ones religion to others. Make life less pleasant so they will come if you build the masque.

The following gives supporting details found on various wikipedia pages by following links to support the above personal experience of dhimmitude. The institution of dimmitude, a modern term, is called by various past names depending on the situation. Dhimmitude took a toll as one can see by the balkan turmoil after the fall of the U.S.S.R. An example of get them before they get us again. Or as Borat would say, "not so good for me."

In the late 7th century a branch of the Bulgars led by Khan Asparuh migrated into the northern Balkans, where they merged with the local Slavic and Thracian population to form the First Bulgarian Empire in AD 681. In 717 the Bulgarians helped relieve the Arab siege of Constantinople, killing some 40,000-60,000 soldiers. Their khan Tervel was called by his contemporaries The Saviour of Europe.

By the end of the 14th century the country had disintegrated into several feudal principalities and was eventually conquered by the Ottoman Empire. A Polish-Hungarian crusade under the rule of Władysław III of Poland to free the Balkans was crushed in 1444 in the battle of Varna.

The five-century period of Ottoman rule was characterized by great violence and oppression. The Bulgarian population was decimated and most of its cultural relics were lost. Large towns and the areas where Ottoman power was strong were severely depopulated until the 19th century.[2]

Following the Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78 and the Treaty of San Stefano of March 3, 1878, an autonomous Bulgarian principality was proclaimed. The treaty was immediately rejected by the Great Powers for fear that a large Slavic country on the Balkans would serve Russian interests. This led to the Treaty of Berlin (1878) which provided for an autonomous Bulgarian principality comprising Moesia and the region of Sofia. The first Bulgarian prince was Alexander von Battenberg. Most of Thrace was included in the autonomous region of Eastern Rumelia, whereas the rest of Thrace along with the whole of Macedonia was returned under the sovereignty of the Ottomans. After uniting with Eastern Rumelia in 1885 (following the Serbo-Bulgarian War), the principality was proclaimed a fully independent kingdom in 1908. This happened during the reign of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in the Russian goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean Sea and liberating the Orthodox Christian Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula (Bulgarians, Serbians) from the Islamic-ruled Ottoman Empire. These nations delivered by the Russians from the centuries of Ottoman rule regard this war as the second beginning of their nationhood.

The war also provided an opportunity to gain full independence for the Kingdom of Romania. Although unlike the rest of the Balkan counties it had never been part of the Ottoman Empire, it was still officially under Ottoman suzerainty. Hence, in Romanian historic works, the war is known as the Romanian War of Independence.

An anti-Ottoman uprising occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer of 1875. The main reason for this revolt was the heavy tax burden imposed by financially defunct Ottoman administration.

Taking of Izmail in 1877.

In August 1876, Serb forces, supported by Bulgarian and Russian volunteers, were defeated by the Ottoman army, which was the worst-case scenario for Russians and Austrians as they couldn't claim any Ottoman possessions. However the atrocities committed against the civilian Slav population during the war and during the Bulgarian April uprising had a wide-spread response throughout Europe. As a result the Constantinople Conference was held in December 1876 in Constantinople (now Istanbul). At this conference, at which the Ottomans were not represented, the Great Powers discussed the boundaries of one or more future autonomous Bulgarian provinces within the Ottoman Empire.

The Conference was interrupted by the Ottoman foreign minister, who informed the delegates that Ottoman empire had approved a new constitution, which guaranteed rights and freedoms of all ethnic minorities and Bulgarians would enjoy equal rights with all Ottoman citizens.

Under pressure from the British and having suffered enormous losses (by some estimates about 200,000 men) Russia accepted the truce offered by Turkey on January 31, 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople. The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped by San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano (Ayastefanos Anlaşması in Turkish) on March 3, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and autonomy of Bulgaria.

Direct examples of dhimmitude by different terminology, referenced and quoted from wikipedia. I choose to focus on military terms of dhimmitude, highlighted below. The right to bear arms denied to Christians was interesting to me. Also interesting was the fact one had to become Muslim to be in the military, even if you were captured and forced to be in the military. Interesting concepts since the west places more importance on nation above religion. The opposite is true in Islam, religion before statehood.

Sultan Murad of the fledgling Ottoman Empire founded the units around 1365. It was initially formed of Dhimmi (non-Muslims, originally exempted from the military service), especially Christian youths and prisoners-of-war, reminiscent of Mamelukes.

The first Janissary units comprised war captives and slaves, selecting one in five for enrollment in the ranks (Pencik rule). After the 1380s Sultan Mehmet I filled their ranks with the results of taxation in human form called devshirmeh: the Sultan’s men conscripted a number of non-Muslim, usually Christian, boys – at first at random, later, by strict selection – to be trained. Initially they favoured Greeks, Albanians (who also supplied many gendarmes), usually selecting about one boy from forty houses, but the numbers could be changed to correspond with the need for soldiers. Boys aged 14-18 were preferred, though ages 8-20 could be taken. Next the devshirmeh was extended to also include Serbs, Bosnians and other Balkan countries, later especially Ukraine and southern Russia. The Janissaries started accepting enrollment from outside the devshirmeh system first during the reign of Sultan Murad III (1546-1595) and completely stopped enrolling devshirmeh in 17th century. After this period, volunteers were enrolled, mostly of Muslim origin.[3]

Janissaries trained under strict discipline with hard labour and in practically monastic conditions in acemi oğlan ("rookie" or "cadet") schools, where they were expected to remain celibate. They were also expected to convert to Islam. All did, as Christians were not allowed to bear arms in the Ottoman Empire until the 19th century. Unlike other Muslims, they were expressly forbidden to wear beards (a Muslim custom), only a moustache. These rules were obeyed by Janissaries, at least until 18th century when they also began to engage in other crafts and trades, breaking another of the original rules.

For all practical purposes, Janissaries belonged to the Sultan, carrying the title kapıkulu ("door slave") indicating their collective bond with the Sultan. Janissaries were taught to consider the corps as their home and family, and the Sultan as their de facto father. Only those who proved strong enough earned the rank of true Janissary at the age of twenty four or twenty five. The regiment inherited the property of dead Janissaries, thus amassing wealth (like religious orders and foundations enjoying the 'dead hand').

In return for their loyalty and their fervour in war, Janissaries gained privileges and benefits.

When Janissaries could practically extort money from the Sultan and business and family life replaced martial fervour, their effectiveness as combat troops decreased. The northern borders of the Ottoman Empire slowly began to shrink southwards after the second Battle of Vienna in 1683. The Janissaries resisted attempts to reorganise the army and in 1622 killed Sultan Osman II when he planned to replace them. They also had support of the Bektashi sect.

n 1826 the Janissaries noticed that the Sultan was forming a new army. Some have suggested that the Sultan had incited them to revolt on purpose. On June 14-15, 1826, the Janissaries in Istanbul revolted but this time most of the army, and the population at large, turned against them. The Sipahis, the cavalry units loyal to the Sultan, forced them to retreat to their barracks. Artillery fired 15 volleys into the barracks, causing massive casualties. Survivors were executed or banished, and two years later Mahmud II confiscated the last Janissary possessions. This event is now called The Auspicious Incident.

The first mamluks served the Abbasid caliphs in 9th century Baghdad. The Abbasids recruited them mainly from areas near the Caucasus (mainly Circassian and Georgian) and in areas north of the Black Sea (mainly Turkic, most of whom were Kipchak Turks). Most of the captured were of non-Muslim origin. The mamluks were often sold into slavery by impoverished steppe families or kidnapped by slave-traders.

After mamluks were converted to Islam, they were trained as cavalry soldiers.

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Turkish-Austrian war of 1791, Serbs living under Turkish rule began to realise that an uprising against the Ottomans might be successful.

Seeing the growing displeasure, the Sultan Selim III proclaimed fermans in 1793 and 1796 which gave more rights to Serbs. Among other things, taxes were now collected by local Serbian rulers called knezes ("local dukes"), freedom of trade and religion was granted, and, most important of all, the Janissary corps had to leave Belgrade Pashaluk.

However, on January 30, 1799, the Turkish court allowed the Janissaries to return. They and their leaders, the dahias, showed little or no respect to any authority, even the central Turkish government. After they killed Vizier Hadzi-Mustafa of Belgrade in 1801, they started to rule Serbia on their own. Recently-granted rights were suspended, and dahias exerted unlimited rule over Belgrade Pashaluk. Taxes were drastically increased, land was taken away, forced labour (čitlučenje) was introduced, and many citizens fled the Janissaries in fear.

In 1805 the Serbian rebels organized a basic government for administering Serbia during the combat. Rule was divided between the Narodna Skupstina (People's assembly), the Praviteljstvujusci Sovjet (Ruling Council), and Karadjordje himself. Land was returned, forced labour was abolished, and taxes were reduced. The young state was modernised and by 1808 the Great School was founded, regarded as the foundation of the University of Belgrade.

The Massacre of Serbian knights, known in Serbia as Seca knezova, was an event which occurred in the central square of Valjevo, when the most prominent nobles of Belgrade Pashaluk were brutally executed by the order of Ottoman authorities. The list included Aleksa Nenadovic and Ilija Bircanin, both fathers to the future diplomats of liberated Serbia. The event triggered a widespread revolt and eventually evolved into a national revolution aimed at putting an end to the 300 years of Ottoman occupation. The massacre included many more high ranked citizens of Serbian descent (dozens of them). According to historical sources of the city of Valjevo, heads of the murdered men (following their decapitation) were put on some sort of a public display in the central square to serve as an example to those who did not agree with the Ottoman politics.

Hadzi Prodan's Revolt soon failed and he fled to Austria. After the failure of this revolt, the Turks inflicted more persecution against the Serbs, such as high taxation, forced labor, and rape. In March 1815, Serbs had several meetings and decided upon a new revolt.

Both guerilla groups had also to confront the Turkish Army. These conflicts ended after the revolution of in July, 1908, as they promised to respect all ethnicities and religions and generally to provide a constitution.

The officers who had instigated the revolution, as well as their civilian supporters, were primarily concerned with preserving the status quo for the Ottoman Empire. They were not, strictly speaking, revolutionaries. It is also pointed out that they were concerned with issues of a more personal nature at the same time as the state's salvation, such as salaries and rank promotions, not unlike the Janissaries a century before then. The military reforms carried out in the Ottoman Empire had accentuated the role of a new type of officer, often of lower social origin and more open to ideas that were developing in the Western world. The Balkan wars had significantly shifted from a multiethnic and multireligious Ottoman Empire to a Muslim core.

With most of the Christian population having already left the Empire after the Balkan Wars, a redefinition of Ottoman politics was in place with a greater emphasis on Islam as a binding force.

All of the above was quoted directly from this website following a few links. Highlights mine.

70.109.94.110 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Charles M.70.109.94.110 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi and welcome to editing this page. I'm sorry you feel that history is being rewritten. I'm also pleased to note you give respect to scholarly intercourse. Unfortunately, this talk page is not really the right place to argue the rights and wrongs of the dhimmi concept in general. Its purpose is to discuss how we can work together to improve the article. The article must be as objective as possible and drawn from reliable sources, which in this case means mainly from the works of academic historians. I'm sure everyone here will respect your knowledge of the history of Bulgaria. Does this knowledge give you any leads for history books/articles that cover the ground you have mentioned? Preferably but not necessarily in English? Thanks. Itsmejudith 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anon in the opinion that this article does not represent Dhimmi as the weapon of Cultural imperialism that it is. No info is given about how many native cultures and languages where wiped out in North and East Africa. The way it grinds down the number of non-muslims in a given area with both CARROT(paying taxes but now getting services, being able to speak in your defence in court) and STICK (threats of both state and non-state violence). I can easily see that could be seen as Historical revisionism (negationism) by family of victims of this policy.Hypnosadist 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hypnosadist. My problem with your argument and anon's is that it cuts across such a huge swathe of history. No doubt things were sometimes very bad. But at other times they was better. The paper by al-Qattan shows that in the period he was researching dhimmis were allowed to speak in their defence in court, indeed frequently chose to go to the Islamic courts for cases that could have been resolved in their own courts. I can myself see why the memory should still be preserved in this way in eastern Europe. But as an English person should I still harbour a grudge against the Scandinavians for their rape and pillage in the 8th-11th centuries? Or against the Germans because of the hardships they inflicted on us in the second world war? Itsmejudith 10:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Two major points, i'm not against the germans but i'm violently opposed to Nazism. Second "things were sometimes very bad" is the attitude i'm talking about. Also Dhimmi laws where still in effect well after the end of transatlanic slave trade, but i'd like you to say to a decendant of a slave that they shouldn't harbour a grudge (i wouldn't). AND the final point is this is not a historic concept but one that is still used in islamic law.Hypnosadist 11:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Things were sometimes very bad and somethimes things were very good. The muslim rule in Spain was even called a "golden age". Also see La Convivencia. Many Jews also found dhimmitude way better than living under Christian rule. // Liftarn

Agreed. Many Jews and Christians thrived within the dhimma. At other times nations exploited the dhimmi system to persecute minorities, no doubt. Bernard Lewis looks on the Dhimmi matter as something that was kind and tolerant at times, very much so when compared to what Christians did to Jews, heretics and Muslims. To some people, anything that doesn't condemn Islam completely is "PC". There were times when Jews considered their environment within Muslim nations as a shelter, relative to their treatment under catholics. Here's a historic event I'd say is notably worse than anything the Islamic empires ever produced: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spanish_inquisition . Shams2006 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1)Ah yes the standard arguement Christians are as bad (if not worse), me like most of the world, are not Christian so that is a meaningless statment. La Convivencia was the best culture in Europe at the time and joint with the Aztecs and Chinese on the world scale. Yet at the same time conditions in the Yemen, Sudan, India, Albania etc are much much worse for non-muslims. All i'm asking for is that Dhimmi is not only illustrated with the La Convivencia.Hypnosadist 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

2)The next bit of "logic" that living as a dhimmi was better than being killed by Catholics durring Spanish_inquisition means that it must of been good. No it allowed them a slightly better chance to survive, which the Jews wisely took.

3)A final bit of History, the Spanish_inquisition was a series of religously motivated murders, torture and other hate crimes affecting around 1 million people. It was brutal but in historical terms very short in comparison to the Arab slave trade that lasted 1400 years before being mostly stopped by Britain (and later other european powers) and involved a minimum of 25 million slaves. Hope that helps with worse events by Islamic empires. Hypnosadist 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor here saying that Dhimmitude was one of the worst events in history. If scholars characterize that same event as being considerate compared to what Christians did, then it can't really be that bad, can it? As someone said here, what Jews called the 'golden age' during the middle ages actually happened while they lived under Muslim rule. Slavery has existed since the first human settlements, and only started to be abolished in the early 1800s in England and France. Before then it was widely practiced in Europe, and was instrumental in Europe's development. In Africa, Muslims neither invented the practice, nor did they promote it. It was a pre-existing condition which they did not ban. Nobody banned slavery until the 1800s. The Spanish Inquisition was an example. Look at how Rome treated heretics and blasphemers. Check out an American meuseum on the torture devices that were employed to execute accused 'witches'. All I'm saying is that Dhimmi wasnt the monstrosity revisionist christians would say it was. Shams2006 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can be that bad, if it was (and is) comparable to what Christians did. What (primarily) the catholic church did was in reality no different than Holocaust, and said church has received (and still receive) wide criticism for its actions. Your logic is backwards. "It's not worse than many other things - ergo it isn't bad". That's flawed logic. The correct conclusion would be: "It is everybit as bad as what the other part did, and therefore a part of the worst actions performed by humans against humans". The "Golden Age" for jews were not a golden age per se. It was not a good period. It was just a less-bad period than other periods. But none-the-less still a bad period. Slavery in Europe was abolished with the rise of Christianity and was replaced with serfdom (related to slavery, but none-the-less not slavery). Slavery reentered the Christian world in the 15th century through slavetrading with muslims. This comeback of slavery was originally banned by the Pope but evidently nobody listened - incl. later popes. Slavery is promoted by muslims since the Qu'ran is actively supporting slavery and even encouraging it - even encouraging sex with (female) slaves (Sura 23, verse 5 and 6). What happened in the West with "heretics" and "witches" was obviously a great crime against humanity. And it has been admitted and apologies have been given. Except for the muslim world. The muslims actively refuse to apologize for anything, claiming it's not particularly bad - even to the level of saying muslim slavery is good. Dylansmrjones 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the former "anonimous" who started this thread. I would like to apologize for the overly emotional tone of my previous posting. Judging by some of the responses, I think I failed to make the main point I was trying to communicate, so let me try to clarify it briefly. (1) The issue at hand is, in fact, Dhimmi as cultural imperialism. It is about systematic attrition of all "other" cultures by the dominant Islamic culture. Today, there is a widespread consensus that cultural imperialism is wrong and damaging to its subjects no matter who is practicing it. (2) Whether other people (e.g. Jews in Spain) fared well or not under the Dhimmi system is completely off topic. With this kind of logic, one can argue that slavery in America was a positive and benign system - surely, a black slave fared much better with a white, well-educated and civilized american plantation owner than her sister who was a slave in Africa? You can easily see that this is a slippery slope. There are some things that are universally understood today to be bad - slavery, Nazism, and Communism are among them. My point was that Dhimmi belongs in the same set of "universally bad" systems. (3) Unlike Nazism, which is history, and Communism, which is almost history (if one doesn't count North Korea and Cuba), Dhimmi is the law of the land in every Muslim country today. How vigorously it is being enforced is not the point. The point is, over 1 billion people don't seem to see anything wrong in a system that divides it's subjects into classes based on their religion and culture. The issue with this article is not about facts - the facts are very well established - it is about moral relativism and reluctance to accept that some things in human history are plain bad. Plague, slavery, Nazism, Communism and Dhimmi all fall into this category. --Maverick61 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi system has been abolished for almost 200 years, and isn't practiced any longer. Arguably Saudi Arabia might be considered to resemble that system, but even there the practices of collecting Jizyah etc no longer exists. Remember that Arabs aren't the only Muslims in the world, and even in the vast majority of the Middle East (Jordan, Syria, etc) Islamic shariah is no longer practiced. I'm afraid you're superimposing your knowlege of the Middle Ages on our contemporary world and applying stereotypes. This is ignorance. Particularly dangerous ignorance, considering this kind of thing has 25% of Americans believing all Arab-Americans should be put in internment camps (according to Discovery/NY Times polls) and 45% believe they all need to carry special identification cards.Shams2006 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The Dhimmi-system is being practiced everywhere in the muslim countries and even in some non-muslim countries (like France). In Egypt the dhimmi-system is still thriving (at least it was still in use in 2006). The Dhimmi-system has _not_ been abolished - nor has slavery in islam. Dylansmrjones 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, do you have a reliable source for the statement that the Dhimmi system is practised in France? If not, perhaps we can move on. Itsmejudith 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer the above statement, Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim, this is the law. Non-Muslims can only stay for a short time,3 days I believe was the rule. No one, not even foreign military personel protecting their nation, are able to practice non-Muslim religions. Non-Muslim populations, even in the birthplace of Christ, are low and getting lower as more choose to emmigrate and get out of Dodge.

Correct Muslims are in other parts of the world. China has a Muslim population. Do you see them being able to collect taxes from the Communist Party? No, the Communist leaders are in charge and have the power. Pakistan gets worker remittance sent back home from those working in the west and India. So this majority Muslim nation gets foreign aid and money from the non-Muslims, modern day poll tax on Christians, Jews, and Hindus?

Muslims in America live in peace. How else can some of the women walk around with head scarfs and not be made to pay a special jizyah tax for the right to wear it? When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Americans do not ask any religious group to dress differently so they may be easily identified. And we do not like our women publicly subjugated. Amazingly they do this themselves, do they like the attention of looking exotic? Many, if not most Arab-Americans are Christian. They have been living peacefully in America years before September 11th. They are American because they choose to be American and not "keep it real." No one wants these fine Christian or Jewish Arabs locked away because they are hard working and contribute to our society. It is ashame the actions of a few has tarnished their repution, if the Times poll you quote is correct, and all Arabs are lumped together. Islamofacism has brought this about, not America.

Someone erased my post on this talk page. Either a dhimmi to be or a Muslim. I think that says a lot about what dhimmitude really means. The just of my post was that the Inquisition was a direct result of 700 years of colonial oppression of the Spanish people by Muslims. If you have a problem with the truths that I post then say it up front and don't cowardly erase my posts. If you are the one that did it then fess up.Cestusdei 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Talk pages, Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match.

The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.

Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles (i.e.Discussion forums). There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.

You may also assume good faith and avoid incivility. Cheers. -- Szvest 10:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So if its just about talk why are both sides not removed? Hypnosadist 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you refer to Maverick61 in contrast? If yes than i invite you to have a look at Cestusdei's contribs and block log to have a clearer idea. Read the second comment of Maverick61 as well. -- Szvest 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should talk about the article, not the subject. My point was that in it's attempt to present "measured and balanced" information, this article has crossed the boundary between being objective and moral relativism. There is more than enough information to conclude that the Dhimmi system belongs to the same place in history as slavery, Nazism and Communism. Such conclusion is objective and not inflamatory. No American or German that I know would consider the above statements about slavery and Nazism insulting or inflamatory. History is what history is. Objectivity does not require lack of moral judgement.--Maverick61 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Shams2006 - Don't know about Dhimmi being abolished 200 years ago - it was in full force and effect in Bulgaria until 1878. Here is a good overview of the current state of affairs when it comes to the Dhimmi system:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=7995&sid=3857e31a06cd07991b145abbb9193fd2.

I fully agree with Shams2006 - the current wave of virulent Islam does not help to uphold the image of Muslims anywhere. The same happened to Germans after WWII. Germans solved the problem by completely denouncing Nazism and making sure that a thing like this can never happen again in Germany. Most people respect them for that.--Maverick61 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the blog mentioned above (faithfreedom.org) the articles on dhimmi are drawn entirely from Bat Ye'or. We are back to the same problem of finding good historical sources for information. Even on the question of objectivity and moral judgement, it is not up to us to take a stance. All we can do here is report fairly and in a balanced way the findings of historians. Itsmejudith 14:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I add this topic because people here mess etymology with meaning. In english hotel, host, hostage and hospital do not mean the same thing but have a common latin origin : hospes, host in english. I re-introduced the triliteral option for dhimmi because all arabic words are built on that base, see wiki article on triliteral Etymology speaks on the origin of the word, not on its meaning. --Golan 11:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, etymology and current meaning are different things. We do not have a source for the etymology. I understand that Arabic words are based on triliteral roots but unless you have a source, guessing that "dhamma" and "dhimmi" share an etymology is original research and not allowed in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually they are completely different words . Damma starts with "dal"(8th alphabet) & spoken "dm", while dhimma with "DZHal"(9th alphabet) (A whole consonant is different , in a word that is made up of 2 consonants only). They are not similar words like hostage and hospital . Dmma means blame while dhima means responsiblity . Dhimmi means responsiblity of muslims . Jizya (meaning reward) is what they pay muslims for fulfilling the responsiblity of their protection. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not gessing, it's simply constating the triliteral those words are made of. Please give your source explaining the triliteral as you say (or guess), and other dh-m-m and d-m-m derived. If you disagree with this etymology, then give yours but not a translation, that's not etymology--Golan 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're adding is original research, not allowed by policy (see WP:OR). The fact that an Arabic speaker (F.a.y.) seems to think you're wrong casts more doubt on your conclusions. Please find a source that explicitly says that dhimmi and dhamma share an etymology and you can add it. - Merzbow 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

F.a.y., what do you think about the most recent change to this section? I'm inclined to see it as original research also. - Merzbow 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider opening a dictionnary is a personnal research, then this whole encyclopedy can be erased. What I explain is verifiable, the sources cited. i removed the translation which is not at all ethymology. Gollan 06:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please put any translation of Dhimmi in the relevant section. Etymology deals with the root of the words. I cited here two different arabic dictionnaries explaining the root and their derivatives. Pls give a relevant etymolgic source contradicting what I've written, not such a free removal.Gollan 13:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to current text "dhimmi" is a word that has two parts, the first of them meaning dispraise, vilify, etc., and the second (كن) purportedly meaning "to cover or to conceal". I can say that such "second part" doesn't exist in the term. كن transliterated stands for "kn". By the way "kn" doesn't mean "cover or conceal"; if you add the harakah (brief vowel "u" as in "super"), usually omitted in modern script) it's the imperative of verb "to be". So the etymology is false. Since the links doesn't work I wonder where such a nonsense has come from. --Filius Rosadis 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right Ibn Rushd, I put a wrong letter for the second part, copy paste error sorry. I meant 27th letter ya ي meaning to coer/to onceal and which is the final letter in dhimmi of course. You should have corrected by yourself my post instead of erasing it. I correct this caracter and put the etymology back. Many thx for your info. Gollan 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So you disagree just with the end of my statement, complain you can't verify pretexting the link is not accesible but you remove the whole statement. Then you put back and extract of a dictionnary that doesn't give any etymology, but a translation. And you argue about nonsense...82.254.20.129 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Now you seriously mean that "The second part is ي , (ya) that means to cover or to conceal."? That's even more ridiculous!

It's not that I just disagree with the end of your statement. I can read and write Arabic so I tell you it's completely wrong. I don't need to verify this, but I am curious about where such a nonsense come along. It's a plain lie (not your fault, since you must have picked it from somewhere, but you should've asked an Arabic speaker before editing, we have many in Wikipedia).

On the other hand, the only working link you added, [1], doesn't support your purported etymology, it just defines words without suggesting any connection between dhamam and dhimmi, and states nothing about etymology.

As for the first part of your statement, it's also wrong as explained before. There's an entry about False etymology which contains this interesting explanation: "Incorrect etymologies have sometimes been created for purposes of propaganda. The opponents of the medieval Dominicans joked that Dominicanes was derived from domini canes (“God’s dogs”). A more malicious example was the derivation of Slav from slave, which was used by the Nazis as a pseudo-linguistic justification for some of their atrocities against Slavs." This particular false etymology of dhimmi has to do basically with islamophobia. --Filius Rosadis 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This comes from http://dictionary.sakhr.com company highly specialized in translation based in Arabia, strangely no more reachable, i did anyway some hardcopy of the screens .

The reference http://dictionary.al-islam.com shows that the root dhamim that exist in dhimmi always means a fault/vilification/disapproval. I don't suggest anything, that's a fact.

Etymology is studying the roots of the words, hence it doesn't give any information on the meaning of the word itself as I stated for hospital and hostage, it just shows how the word is built.

By the way the etymology for slave/slav is correct, i don't say that by slavophobia, i'm half slav. The riciculous play on word for dominicans is not etymology, be serious.

I went to my article just citing what I found, and i honestly admit I've been surprised that what I found using an arabic dictionnary is the same as another person wrote using the triliteral on his side.

I've been really surprised that all reference to triliteral in this article a month ago were systematically erased, while another article explaining the triliteral and the etymology for kitab has no problem, less sensitive perhaps.

Has this blindness on etymology something to do with islamism ? Gollan 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question of eitherislamophobia or islamism. Simply, the point remains: we do not have any reliable source for the etymology of "dhimmi" so there is no justification for including a section with that heading. The translation of the word from Wehr on the other hand is properly sourced and can go in. If there is an authoritative etymological dictionary for Arabic and if it has an entry for "dhimmi" then that would constitute a proper source.Itsmejudith 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comments in the meaning section. Wehr's dictionary organizes words by roots. This always involves etymological decisions. In fact Wehr decides to list dhimmi and dhimma as nouns derived from the basic root dh.m.m. as found in dhamma 'to blame'. To eradicate this reference to the root verbal form seems senseless. One can question Wehr's analysis that dhimmi and dhamma are nominal forms of dhamma - and if someone has a serious source on this, let them bring it forward - but to ignore Wehr's judgement on this is misguided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagleswings (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC). Sorry - I forgot to sign this. Thanks for the correction. Eagleswings 12:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What Wehr really says in his dictionary

Sorry for necroing this section, but I finally got a copy of Wehr's dictionary: A dictionary of modern written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. Third edition. Spoken Languages Service, Inc., 1976. ISBN 0-87950-001-8. Page 312 contains the terms dhamma, dhimma, dhimmi, dhimam, dhamam, dhamim, madhmoom, et al. He never states or suggests any etymological relationship. Quite to the contrary, the Introduction (page X) says: The arrangement of word entries under a given root does not necessarily imply etymological relationship. Consistent separation of such roots was dispensed with because the user of a practical dictionary of modern Arabic will not generally be concerned with Semitic etymology. This is exactly the opposite of what has been stated above: Wehr's dictionary organizes words by roots. This always involves etymological decisions. Other obvious examples (from the same edition) of arrangement of words with the same triliteral lacking any common etymology are: p. 668: gharb (west), ghurāb (crow); and p. 947: naḥs (disaster), naḥās (coppersmith). --Filius Rosadis 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning

The Meaning of Dhimmi is not derived from the word to blame, to blame is pronounced Dhamma, in the arabic language, changing one letter may change the meaning of the word, even give it the exact opposite of what it truly means. Dhimma ( third letter is i not a) doesn't have a specific meaning I can think of in the english language, but the closest meaning tends to be translated as (responsibility), since it was muslims responsibility to protect the dhimmis living under their rule.

Dhimma & dhamma are totally different words . I dont know how people mix up two rot words & are still considered scholars . The etymology sec should definitely be revised . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Without doubt, Dhamma is not the same as "Dhimma". The concerned person in the first case is "Dhamim" [-+ Ugly] and the concerned one in the second case is "Dhimmiy" [Dhimma is like "compact" and "dept/obligation" or maybe "compact by obligation"].

The Dhimmy is -in my eyes, though- one of the civilized sides in islam. It grant the freemdom of belief in an islamic society. And they were very respected in the islam, Mohammed said there about: who harmed a dhimi, has harmed me too. ["من آذى ذميا فقد آذاني]. The fact that the Dhimmi's had to pay special taxes is -in my eyes, though- normal, since they don't pay the "zakat" or "Sadaqat" which are obligated for the muslims. The article is by the way much too long; The article should be separated as long as we don't have to pay special taxes to create other pages. Read3r 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These comments are not relevant to the question of the accuracy of the etymological notes. Roots in Arabic are triliteral. The triliteral root here is dh-m-m. Both dhamma (verb) and dhimma (noun) are derived from this root. A comparable example is the root d-q-q which gives the verb daqqa 'to be thin' and the noun diqqa 'thinness'. Likewise the root sh-d-d gives rise to the verh shadda 'to become firm, vigorous', and the noun shidda 'firmness, strength, power'. These objections seem POV-motivated: the comment that the dhimma is 'one of the civilized sides in Islam' is just irrelevant to etymology. In any case, the history of these words goes back to pre-Islamic times, and the etymological link between dhamma and dhimma has nothing to do with whether Islam is good or bad. I have removed the dispute flag for this section, because no relevant objections have been made to its content, and no cited authorities have been given for the proposals to change the section.Eagleswings 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymologies, even those given in etymological dictionaries, are often just educated guesses and are frequently subject to revision by later scholars. I note that you give your own knowledge of Arabic as Level 1. Is this section disputed? Yes. I am putting the tag back on. Itsmejudith 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

@Eagleswings, we have two nouns in Arabic: "Dhimma" and "Dhamama". The second one means what you said. The named person from Dhimma is "Dhimmi", and the person from "dhamama" is "Dhamim". So you can clearly see that they are distinctive. The same letters which you call the "roots" can lead in many cases to misunderstandings when you consider the similarities of the letters as relationship with the meaning. "Mawla" can as example mean "the master" and "the slave/knight" in the same time another better example is the verb "Shaqqa". Even, if we would accept that the two names are related [which is unlikely], that doesn't mean they were used in that context [to blame]. The arab speaking people use the word "Dhimma" as serious personal impact or debt. by the way, you surely meant "Raqqa" by "daqqa" in your reply. Read3r 15:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the Dictionary in front of me. It writes about Dhamma and Dhimma and Dhimmi in p.360. On Dhimma it says:

"pl. dimam protection, care, custody, coventant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; in violability, security of life and property; safegurd, guaruntee, security; conscience.... ahl ad-dhimma: the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety;..."

There is no connection whatsoever made between dhamma and dhimma. I suggest an admin blocks the editor who added this. --Aminz 04:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange policy to ask for blocking a contributor. I hope this pretended encyclopedia leaves at least a free speech to any contributor who has arguments to give even discutables, we're here to discuss. Please, no Redeker policy. It's not here question of the meaning of Dhimma but its origin. By the way, how to translate in one or several distincts words a legal status existing only under islam and arabic language ? The French could then say that 'code noir' means protection, because it meant to protect black slaves against physical abuse . --Golan 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Amiz is quite mistaken. It is absolutely clear that the Arabic scholar Hans Wehr lists dhimma and dhimmi in his dictionary as nouns derived from the triliteral root found dh.m.m as found in the verb dhamma 'to blame', for they are all listed as part of the one entry. As Wehr explains in his introduction (in my edition p. XIII) the verb 'in the perfect of the base' is lsted first - this is dhamma. The nominal forms follow (e.g. including dhamm, dhimma, dhimmi).

Of course, it is entirely normal for derived forms to develop distinctive meanings. Just because for a native speaker two words seem to be 'unrelated' doesn't prove anything about etymology. A walrus is derived from whale + horse. The fact that for a native English speaker walrus now seems unrelated to either 'horse' or 'whale' is quite irrelevant. Etymology is about the history of words, and what is absolustely clear is that Wehr treats dhimmi and dhimma as nominal forms derived from the basic root dh.m.m as found in dhamma.

Note also that one's native knowledge of Arabic is irrelevant to the question of passing judgement on issues of etymology. Being a native speak of English doesn't qualify you to determine whether the word thimble comes from the word thumb, or whether skirt is related to shirt (they are) or whether 'rosemary' is derived from the word 'rose' (it isn't). However that such an experienced lexicographer (dictionary maker) as Wehr has clearly made a decision that dhimma and dhimmi are based upon the same root as dhamma. - well this is his view, and he knows what he is doing.

Unless someone has a better authority than Wehr on the etymology of this word, the original references should stay in.

Sadly, what this is all REALLY about is ideologically-driven disputes about the dhimma, and whether it was a BAD or a GOOD thing. Because some deem the etymological link between dhamma and dhimma as a BAD thing, then they fight against the reference, propose that an editor should be blocked etc etc. This is just POV editorial politics. This whole article is bedevilled with this kind of POV approach, and its credibility as a reference on this important topic is lowered as a result. Eagleswings 12:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect this discussion, but just to add more information on this from another Arabic lexicon to help clarify both meaning and etymology, this time the well-respected and classic work of Lane:

"A compact, a covenant, a contract, a league, a treaty, an engagement, a bond, or an obligation ... because the breaking thereof necessitates blame ... and ذِمَّة signifies also أمان [as meaning security, or safety; security of life and property; protection, or safeguard; a promise, or an assurance, of security, safety, protection, or safeguard; indemnity; or quarter];"

This clearly gives inference as to why it is contained under the trilateral root word for "blame".

"The people with whom a compact, or covenant, has been made; [and particularly] those of the believers in a plurality of Gods, [by which are here meant the Christians, Jew, and Sabians, but no others,] who pay the [tax called] جِزْيّة [i e. the free non- Muslim subject of a Mulim government, who pay a poll-tax for which the Muslims are reponsible for their security and freedom and toleration." (Dawooddren (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

In english hotel, host, hostage and hospital do not mean the same thing but have a common latin origin : hospes, host in english. Was Dhimmi suposely meaning protection, used before for the same purpose outside this legal status ? Was it used for instance to qualify some protection of citizens ? Is this word used outside this legal status ? What are the other arabic words with the same triliteral root dh-m-m apart dhimma and dhamma ? --Golan 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Answered here. --Filius Rosadis 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bat Yeor

Is she authentic enough that almost half of the article comes from her pen . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not important whether she is authentic or notable. The fact is she is not a historian and therefore not acceptable as a main source of facts for a history article. The main task now for this article is to rewrite it using only proper historical sources. It helps if they are written in English but they should ideally not just be from Western countries. Another question, that we discussed here a long time ago, is restructuring the article, because it is not just that Bat Ye'or is used as a source for one-off facts but also that the article as it is at present follows her structure. Itsmejudith 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually tried to show her direction of views in the section "Dhimmi in the literature". BTW, why was that section removed? I think it was good to inform the readers that "Dhimmitude" is actually a myth according to Lewis. --Aminz 00:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can always restructure the article. --Aminz 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

this article needs to be redone from top to bottom. the entire thing reeks of bias--not only factually, but the semantics of it look to pardon an apartheid-like policy.

it's one thing to be politically or religiously motivated--it's another to make a sincere attempt to gloss over a historically documented fact.

i would enjoy an expert to categorically define the term and erase the politically correct semantics of the article.

Unfortunately dhimmitude is not consigned to history. Arrow740 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is a prominent historian. Arrow740 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

She is not a prominent historian. She makes observations and her views academcially are as legitimate as the views of most who have posted in this discussion. She is considered credible by those looking for any source to back their views. Nokhodi 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparing her credibility that of those who post here completely misses the point. We are lay encyclopedia editors doing what Wikipedia calls "source research". Everything we add must be based on the work of bona fide scholars doing original research. There is no use discussing this point any more except on the basis of a close reading of WP policies and guidelines. Itsmejudith 10:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Judith what is wrong with her "method"? as that accusation makes no sense to me as no academic has disproved any of the facts she has made public or the translations of documents she has done. WP policies and guidelines clearly show she is a good source as compared to say american academics that take 20 million dollars to promote Islam.Hypnosadist 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the negative evaluation of Bat Yeor's work. First, I happen to know that she is a trained historian. econd, everything she writes is vetted with first-rate scholars, whom she explicitly thanks in the forwards to her books. One may differ with her interpretations. Obviously, as a former dhimmi, she will look at things differently than a Muslim will. That is to be expected. Wikipedia is supposed to allow for multiple voices. If other religious traditions can do so, so should Muslims.Woolfj 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Report fairly and in a balanced way?

Itsmejudith says above "Even on the question of objectivity and moral judgement, it is not up to us to take a stance. All we can do here is report fairly and in a balanced way the findings of historians".

I have a huge problem with this point of view. Take a look at the articles on Nazism, Racism and Cultural Imperialism. Neither of the three articles seeks to be "fair" in covering the point of view of the people who practice nazism, racism and cultural imperialism, despite knowing for a fact that such points of view exist. Why? Because nazism, racism and cultural imperialism are universally considered bad. Oh horror - I just made a moral judgement. And so did, apparently, the authors of these three articles. And so did billions of people worldwide. The issue is settled. Period.

Judith, would you care to edit the article on Nazism to make it more "fair and balanced" to the Neo-Nazis? And if not, why on earth are you trying to do this here?--Maverick61 09:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maverick, I did not use the word "fair" and I used the word "balanced" in relation to the professional opinions of historians. I am not trying to edit this article to be more fair and balanced to any group, or even to be more fair and balanced full stop. I am trying to help it to reflect the views of the authorities in the field. We could discuss this further but it would have to be on the basis of WP:NPOV (especially the sections "Religion" and "Morally offensive views"(, WP:RS (especially 9.1 History), and at WP:V. I had a look at the article on Nazism. I don't see any moral judgements in it. It is a good illustration of how to stick to the facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions; however it is rather poorly referenced. Itsmejudith 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Judith, sorry for twisting your words. I think we now have something we can both agree on: the article on Nazism is a good, fair and balanced way to report history and stick to the facts. All I would like to see is a Dhimmi article that works the same way, and, yes, it would be nice if it was better referenced. Agreed?--Maverick61 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW the analogy bw Dhimmi, Nazism & Racism is badly wrong , & is based upon ignorance {& arrogance). The concept of Dhimma can more exactly be equated with the concept of Goyim, Heathen or Dalit/Maleecha . In no religious scripture will you see any rights of these people, only Islam gives them rights to live . Canaanites, American Indians, Buddhists in India .... they are all dead . Goy or Heathen articles are much more balanced & fair . And they are definitely not based on the works of anti-semites or anti-christians . Unlike this , here the whole article is based on hate-inciting works of rabid Islamophobes . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"American Indians," this would imply America is a theocracy which of course it is not. To explain, Christianity is simply not the reason there are fewer Native Americans in the US, besides the native americans in the US, ascribed in law, have equal rights with their fellow Americans. The same cannot be said of many natives in Islamic countries.... unless of course, they become muslims. And well, I fail to understand how the status of 'native americans' in the US has any relevence to this article. JHJPDJKDKHI! 06:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

F.a.y. read my previous posts: I am not making an analogy between Dhimmi and Nazism. I am stating that Dhimmi is a form of Cultural Imperialism. It is widely accepted today that cultural imperialism is damaging and wrong, no matter who perpetrates it. As far as ignorance is concerned, my grand-grandparents were dhimmi under the Ottoman empire, and it so happens that they were still alive when I was a teen... I am talking from first-hand witness accounts heard by me personally.--Maverick61 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maverick I do see where you are coming from, but an article must be based on objective sources. Unfortunately your memories of conversations with your great-grandparents don't count. They are oral history. If you had written them down and got them published then perhaps they could have been cited. That's how it goes. It's only been in editing this page that I've learnt how rigorous Wikipedia sourcing has to be. Also, of course your family memories could only ever be evidence for one part of the world and one period of time. This article has to cover many different countries and many centuries. There are serious historiographical problems in doing that. The evidence we have of the distant past is quite different from the evidence of the last century. Are there any books, based on historical research, that you would like to see used here? Itsmejudith 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PS in relation to your comment before last, Maverick, which I missed. No apology necessary. Yes, we can agree on the basis for moving this article forward. Itsmejudith 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The repeated use of the phrase 'Fair and balanced' makes me nervous. Fox News uses that phrase as a euphamism for their Christian conservative pro-republican portrayals/revisionism of reality. I don't think we want that kind of tactic employed in editing this article. If we're using that phrase for what it means in english rather than 'american', we need to be clear on that. Shams2006 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

maverick, dhimmi is not properly compared to cultural imperialism. I wonder if that's even an appropriate analogy for what your grandparents experienced - did they speak arabic and wear robes and have little recollection of bulgarian non-Islamic influence? I agree with Fay, compare apples to apples. Nazism and Apartheid were systems based on race. Compare dhimmi to goyim, etc. and from sources that cite historical accountsOizfar 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It just didn't work in bulgaria, which like Balkans remained a disputed teritory and look at the legacy of peace this has left that area of the world. Where as if you look at north and east africa, pakistan etc you can see how effective dhimmi was in destroying local culture, religion and language(particluarly in africa). We have lot of evidence of the simple facts that non-muslim countries where invaded dhimmi was applied and now they are muslim countries, the reason we are given is that these people happily converted (without compulsion), BS and every one knows it. Dhimmi is text book cultural imperialism, most empires export their culture accidently as the defeated peoples try to deal with their new rulers. Dhimmi uses taxation and increased rights and greater security offered if you become a muslim to deliberately chip away a non-muslim cultures year on year, century after century. Only those with the strongest cultural bonds last more that 100 years under these rules, then the rules on Apostates (ie that they should be killed) stops people moving away from islam back to their original faith. The only way you can improve on dhimmi is by adding an advertising campain against non-muslims. The only thing comparable in history for the distuction of native cultures is Catholic church's activities in South and Central america which where at least equal if not as bad (but this was convert or die force not cultural imperialism). Islam started by distorying another religions shrine and claiming it as its own (mecca) and imposing its beliefs and has continued in this way for 1400 years hence why it now covers a large area and has 1.6 billion followers, this is the fact of the matter.Hypnosadist 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno, we really ought not to be using the article talk page to present our own PsOV. Having said that, I just wanted to point out that the spread of Islam in Africa happened for a great variety of reasons and over a very long period of time indeed (7th century until today). You might also want to think about how and why Christianity spread so quickly in sub-Saharan Africa. (The novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe deals with this in a brilliant and very readable way.) And there are many people today who follow one of the monotheistic religions and at the same time are proud of their ancient cultural traditions, whether in Africa, Latin America, Australia, United States .... Itsmejudith 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I guess I just want to add another perspective to this discussion on Dhimmi. The "Islamic State" as used in all of the historical contexts here(ie: Khalifa Rashidoon, Omayads, Fatimids, Ottomans, etc) viewd Muslims as citizens of the state and non-Muslims as non-citizens. I won't argue about the excesses that have been committed by various regimes against dhimmis, but put in the context I offer here might bring things into better focus. The wearing of a yellow or blue belt, or black or red hat becomes synonmous with visas, green cards, etc. If you think not, then you have never experienced the treatment readily offered to those who are of non anglo-saxon or white origin in this country who lack citizen status, or worse yet are undocumented. Citizenship has always had preference over non-citizenship in any society. How different societies treated their non-citizen populations would make for an interesting study in comparison to the dhimmi's relationship to their contemporary Islamic rulers. Of course if we do view the status of a dhimmi as being synonamous with non-citizenship we begin to take away the some of the "evilness" many of us would like to portray as being synonamous with Islam. In order for me to be a valid citizen of the United States, I must make a pledge of alegience to the Religion of this state, which is secularism. Ibrahim

---

Lets have some more facts then (it won't work but hey!)! Dhimmi's are not non-citzens in a far off land, they are the subject of invasion in their country and then forced to pay for the right to draw breath. They are not illegal imigrents or undocumented as the PC term is, its their country! You want to know what dhimmi is like, its exactly the same as the war on Iraq then the americans charge all iraqies 5% of the yearly income to protect them from terrorism, and there is no iraqy government only direct rule from washington. And i bet you don't like the iraq war to start with.Hypnosadist 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PS secularism (and governments enforcing it)is why mosques don't get car bombed in the west but they do in iraq! and its not a religion thats why all the western muslims on this site can go and pray right now if they wanted in many different flavours of Islam.Hypnosadist 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

no society in the world provides social services without taxation. No society in the world embraces minorities without them becoming full citizens and swearing allegiance to the state. It's the mark of a truly advanced society that it would, as a theocracy, allow other religions to exist completely independently and even enforce their own sacred law. I would love to see the vatican allow Muslims to come in and set up a little shariah state in some corner. What you deliberately ignore is that Dhimmis are free from the religious obligation to pay zakat, which is similiar in amount to jizya. What you deliberately perpetuate is the lie that all or even most lands that existed under Islamic rule did so as the result of offensive conquest. Wikipedia is not the place for either my characterization or hypnosadist’s. It’s telling that the enemies of Islam are so desperate to wage smear campaigns that even minutae like this is not spared.Oizfar 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No obligation to pay Jizah exist (unless it is applied by force), thats the fact you fail to comprehend. You have no idea how i can find these things offensive so you can have no idea what i'm going to talk about. Which of the zero muslims in the vatican need shariah law? Ps can i go to see the black stone as it was my faiths' before you stole it off us?Hypnosadist 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This addresses the contention that the definition should not be included because the condition has been long since abolished. The dhimmi-ist condition does exist today, though the term may be techically obsolete. Christians in Moslem countries are universally forbiddent to proseltize, though this is a condition of their faith -to "share" the faith. This is perhaps a violation of the United Nations charter relating to freedom of religion. But even if consistent with the charter, per se, it still violates religious freedom.

Why not just state what the word means in its common day use?

Dhimmi is a non muslim subjecting to the idears of a muslim. Dhimmitude is the behaviour of a non muslim subjecting to the idears of muslims.

Cleanup LEAD

The lead paragraph is too long for an article explaining an arabaic word and it uses. Please can the local editors cleanup. FrummerThanThou 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe limit the intro to the definition of Dhimmi and add a section that disscusses who dhimmis were and the rights they were allowed freakytiki34166.82.144.14 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A few sentences is not enough. See WP:Lead--Aminz 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Influence of Race on Dhimmi Status

The article includes the entry:

Negative attitudes towards Dhimmis existed .. The negative attitudes however rarely had any ethnic or racial components

Could someone please clarify the apparent conflict between this and other claims of racial inclusiveness within Islamic jurisprudence and the well known practice of keeping black African slaves in some Islamic countries, which, I think, continued until recent times? Many thanks!

--Philopedia 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The source for this statement is Bernard Lewis. The argument is that in those countries where slaves could be kept those slaves might not only include Black Africans but also people from other ethnic/racial groups. Well into the 20th century there were stories circulating in Europe of Arabs kidnapping and enslaving White people, especially women, as slaves. There is still slavery around the world today - debt bondage and other kinds - and it should be possible to find links to this in the encyclopedia.Itsmejudith 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First Millions of white people were taken as slaves from the balkans and caucusses, are you saying that equal rights slavers are morally better that people who only bought black slaves because they were the only colour being sold by the Black and Arab Slave dealers on Africa's west coast? Secondly Judith what about ongoing real slavery (as opposed to working for money to eat) in the Sudan (under quranic authority) and human trafficing humans for the sex trade (which has nothing to do with dhimmi or islam), this is not about the colour of the slaves but the institution of slavery. Also a note; in jamaca a few black slaves who gained their freedom (from white britons) went on to own slaves of there own, does this mean that slavery in the america's has nothing to do with race? Of course not!Hypnosadist 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Many of them were discussed later:

• " Dhimmis have second-class citizen status."As Lewis says usage of this term to pre-modern Islam is improper as citizenship is modern, and the phrase of "second-class citizen status" has negative connotations which obscures the reality in pre-modern times.

• Dhimmi is abolished. Christians in Iran now go to military service. So everything should be in past.

• Removal of reliable sources and putting words in mouth of sources is not proper.

--Aminz 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree "second-class citizen" is too loaded of a term to use, but I think it's fair to use the term "legal and social inferiority", which is also said by Lewis. I also agree the article should be phrased in the past. Religious minorities are in fact mistreated in many Muslim countries today (i.e. the Bahai in Iran, Orthodox Christians in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.), but only portions of the formalized system of dhimma survive, so it's not accurate to call them dhimmis. - Merzbow 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still part of Sharia. Either get sources saying that dhimmi is abolished or phrase it in the present. I'll give this a couple days. Arrow740 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Logically, you can't say that "dhimmis are" unless there are actual dhimmis. I can invent any code of law that I like, but I can't say that "people under my code of law are..." unless such people actually exist in the present. It can be argued that some people today live in a state of dhimmitude, which is a modern term that has a broader meaning, but not under the dhimma. - Merzbow 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Social and legal inferiority is fine. For abolishing of dhimmi, see Lewis 1984 pp. 62–66.--Aminz 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still in effect in Saudi Arabia, is it not? And elsewhere de facto? I'm sure under the Taliban it was explicit. Arrow740 09:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We can see how scholarly sources put it. In past or in present. They put it in past, so should we do. --Aminz 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about dhimma, not just the history of dhimma before 1984. Unfortunately Muslims are still oppressing minorities. Arrow740 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dhimma is a specific legal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims that encompasses many aspects. Some of these elements are present in some Muslim countries, but in no country are enough of them present to constitute the dhimma, and you will not find a reputable scholar or critic who will say so. - Merzbow 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these rambling and off-topic (respectively) apologetics[2]. There is no sense in rebutting that which is not alleged.Proabivouac 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's describtive. Lewis says: "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is nontheological....It is rather the usual attitude of the dominant to the subordinate, of the majority to the minority, without additional theological and therfore psychological dimension that gives Christian anti-Semitism its unique and special character" --Aminz 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, what's the point. why are you removing the text? Is Lewis's description of Dhimmi apologetic?--Aminz 07:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In order to be descriptive, something must first be comprehensible. For example, what is the phrase, "partly due to certain specific prejudices and humiliations." intended to impart?

And again, why rebut what is never said? Does any portion of the article allege that Dhimma is similar to Christian Anti-semitism? Barring such a comparison, the point is off-topic. This isn't a popularity contest between religions.

"why are you removing the text? Is Lewis's description of Dhimmi apologetic?"

Aminz, having seen the way you've editted article after article, there can be no question that your use of it is meant to be.Proabivouac 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Aminz should be commended for being a valuble wikipedia editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.12.211 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

al-Hibri

She is not a historian or scholar of Islamic studies. Her interpretation of hadith is no better than any other non-scholar, and she is not a reliable source. Arrow740 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

His research includes "Islamic Jurisprudence"[3] and the journal is reliable. Please do not remove sourced material before discussing it. --Aminz 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a woman, and Robert Spencer's research includes jihad, but you won't let us use him in the Islam article. The journal she published in is a reliable source for it's field, law. "Islamic Jurisprudence" is not part of her training nor is it the field of the journal she published in. Arrow740 08:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Her expertise is clear from her homepage, the article she has published and the courses she has taught.[4] --Aminz 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

File an RfC. As long as she's in Spencer and Bat Ye'or are in. Teaching a class on something somewhere doesn't make you a reliable source on it. Being a consultant for the US government, now that's a qualification! Arrow740 08:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

according to that website, and he resume[5], she teaches courses on Islamic law and jurisprudence at universities and has given international lectures on islamic law. she also obtained the Fulbright Scholar Award from the University of Qatar, School of Shari'ah, in 2001. that's certainly good enough. i suggest you undo your mass removals. ITAQALLAH 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I do like this encyclopedia to be encyclopedic, but if we're allowing her, then the much more scholarly, qualified Spencer will be consulted frequently henceforth. Arrow740 08:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like she was at that school of Sharia for 3 months. Hardly a doctorate! What's "international lectures" supposed to mean? Same goes for Spencer and Ibn Warraq. Arrow740 08:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spencer has no degree on Islamic studies either. A master degree in early Christianity and furthermore his academic competence has been utterly rejected by Academic scholars. He doens't publish in peer-reviewed presses either. They are not comparable. --Aminz 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

the difference is, Spencer has no university qualifications or endorsements relating to Islamic studies (in this case, Islamic law and jurisprudence), whereas Hibri does. he does not teach courses at reputed universities relating to Islamic law and jurisprudence, whereas Hibri does. furthermore, Hibri's works on Islamic jurisprudence are endorsed by scholarly publications like NY university press, making her far more suitable than Spencer - who remains unqualified and unscholarly. ITAQALLAH 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

oh, and as Aminz says, Spencer has been criticized for his pseudo-scholarly work, whereas Hibri has not. ITAQALLAH 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been criticised for bias not factual errors, were as religious leaders of a religion arn't at all biased in favour of that religion (thats sarcasm). The idea that anyone of faith can be unbiased towards their religion and its problems is a joke. PS pseudo-scholarly HAH who mentioned Esposito.Hypnosadist 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hibri is not notable enough to have been criticized for anything. Nevertheless, I agree that she is notable enough for this article, so I will support the inclusion of that statement. - Merzbow 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is actually quite ludicrous. First, what wikipedia guideline says that groundless accusations of pseudo-scholarship bar someone from being a reliable source? No where. Lewis, the greater Islamic studies scholar, has also come under criticism, but he isn't barred. Esposito has been widely exposed as a fraud who conducts no original research, yet he's cited again and again. Teaching a course doesn't make one an expert. Grad students at schools with Islamic studies departments (Univ of Richmond doesn't seem to have one [6] [7]) do this as well! Grad students teach courses all the time, including upper division ones. Even undergrads do this occasionally. At a school which comes across as being as desperate as this one's, teaching a course on something means nothing. What is Azizah Y. al-Hibri (2003) supposed to mean anyway? What is the context? This woman is a highly educated person. In law and philosophy. She's dabbled in "Islamic jurisprudence" but has no training in it. Her university has indulged her by letting her try to teach a course in it. Great. They probably only looked at the Meccan suras. I'll have more to say elsewhere. Arrow740 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All I gotta say is it cuts both ways. You just have to scroll into the archives to find the nuclear warfare conducted over the Ye'or material last year (egged on mostly by one user, granted, but he'll be back from his 'vacation' soon). While al-Hibri's credentials aren't ideal for this sort of thing, they are credentials. As I said back then, the subject of Dhimmi is not widely treated in academia, so to have a well-written article we can't be as picky about sources as we can and should in, say, Muhammad. - Merzbow 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He might be back [8]. The anti-Semitism tipped me off. Arrow740 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: instead of trying to evaluate for ourselves which scholars are most reliable, we look instead at the quality of the publications. The major academic publishing houses are quite easily identifiable - Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, Sage... - and in any case of doubt we should stick to publications from those reliable houses. (The major journals are also published by identifiable houses, e.g. Taylor & Francis is the journal imprint for Routledge.)Itsmejudith 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmitude in Saudi Arabia

I have read that Saudi Arabia is officially under Sharia, but also officially 100% Muslim. Should we confirm and mention that? Arrow740 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Until recently it had thousands of non-Muslim ex-pats. British and European professional and technical workers but also many lower paid workers from south and south east Asia. I believe fewer now, but surely still some?Itsmejudith 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this particular issue? The question of the dhimma is moot in Saudi Arabia as it has no non-Muslim citizens/subjects. Resident foreigners have never been treated as ahl al-dhimma, as far as I know. Palmiro | Talk 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I temporarily worked in S.A. a few years back and there were plenty of non-muslims there. While we weren't citizens, the country depends on foreign labor to do the jobs that Saudis do not want to do. Many from South Asia were Hindu and others from Philippines were Christian. No religious symbols, such as crosses, were allowed to be worn by guest workers and the "church" where some Christians worshipped was a non-descript building with absolutely no markings. It was allowed by the authorities, but services had to be held quietly and the building could not have any crosses or other religous items visible even inside. Sounds kind of like a dhimmi status to me.

Thanks, Palmiro. Another point is that shari'a and the dhimmi rules were elaborated long before the modern nation-states existed with their written constitutions, laws of citizenship, passports, international treaties etc. So if Saudi Arabia really based itself 100% on the shari'a it wouldn't even exist as a separate entity.Itsmejudith 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that sharia excludes the idea of a nation-state? My point is that everything in this article should be in present tense because dhimmitude is still part of sharia and sharia still exists in practice and in theory. Arrow740 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Shari'a still exists in practice but I'm not aware of the dhimma existing in practice anywhere. Of course, in relation to Judith's point, the whole Islamist edifice is an entirely modern (albeit deeply reactionary) movement pretending not to be, but that's by the bye. Ibn Saud himself showed a lively appreciation of the need for pragmatism when his ulama threatened to outlaw motor vehicles for his army (or so I remember reading, in a fairly trashy biography of the man it must be admitted).

Sorry, Arrow, I missed your point about sharia excluding the idea of the nation state. Most Islamists would most certainly say so, or to be precise, they would claim that the only nation to have any legitimacy in Dar al-Islam - the lands of Islam - is the Islamic nation. Indeed I think probably most ulama would agree with them in theory, though I'm by no means an expert on the issue. The word the Qur'an uses to describe the Muslim community - "umma" - is also the word used to mean "nation" in modern political discourse, but while Arab nationalists use it to refer to the Arab nation, for Islamists it must mean the Islamic nation. Palmiro | Talk 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I'm responding to Itsmejudith's statement "So if Saudi Arabia really based itself 100% on the shari'a it wouldn't even exist as a separate entity." I don't see why that would be true. In any case shouldn't we use the present tense all over the place here? Aren't the Christians in Turkey dhimmis, if not de jure then certainly de facto? Arrow740 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they certainly aren't, although they are indeed subject to religious discrimination. And I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to speak of a legal status existing de facto but not de jure. In any case, you would need a reliable source, and I think you would be a while looking for one for that contention. Palmiro | Talk 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything specific right now. Arrow740 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it's just that as I understand it when the shari'a was established there were not really nation states as we define them today. The focus of the Islamic lawmakers was on the umma, the community of Muslim believers. If the Saudis really wanted to stick to the absolute letter of the shari'a they would logically have to dissolve their country into a wider caliphate. They would give Muslims from all regions equal rights in every respect, apply the dhimmi regulations to Christians and Jews and give virtually no rights at all to those not of Abrahamic religion. Their kings would have no authority. I don't think they're going to do this. As for Turkey, it isn't a democratic state, but it is a secular one.Itsmejudith 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith! I think you deserve a medal for saying that Turkey is a secular state and not democratic. I am not saying that Turkey took the right decision or wrong decision. What I am trying to say is that there is no true model of democratic state. Almost all the western world has gone into secular state status in the name of democracy, although unfortunately, most Muslim countries are even lagging far behind even to the western democratic model. I believe that what kind of democracy is it, that you can implement any philosophy, any theory, any idea *BUT* not from any religious scripture. Anyway! this is atleast how I look. TruthSpreader^reply 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the religious authorites in Saudi Arabia would tell you that they have fully implemented Sharia, and I think they would know what they were talking about. Sharia doesn't require a caliph. Arrow740 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they would say that, but others would disagree. To give only the most obvious example, the practice of Islamic law in Iran, where Shi'a is dominant, has many differences from Saudi Arabia. And in the article we cite Ghamidi as an authority, and he has been an adviser on Islamic law to the government of Pakistan, again with quite different conclusions to those adopted in Saudi Arabia. Islam - to its credit - is a universalist religion insisting on the unity of humanity, and many interpretations, whether strict, liberal or just pious, reject the ideology of nationalism. As far as I can see, all interpretations are critical of nationalism. Many Muslims regard Saudi Arabia as hypocritical, and even those who don't care to criticise the country of Mecca may still shake their heads sadly at the image it seems to project to the world.Itsmejudith 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a nation doesn't imply an ideology of nationalism necessarily. Regarding Ghamidi, he is given undue weight on wikipedia. Arrow740 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the discussion of having nations or a collective central government in Islam is only discussed in Fiqh and not in Sharia. Hence, I find this discussion irrelevant to (core) issues in Islam. Although, when something is considered part of the religion, one must look at the whole umma to see if this practice is prevalent or not (Qur'an transmitted through hafiz and core Sunnah through perpetual adherence by the umma, while hadith has only been transmitted through few people and later on by scholars, but not by the whole umma). What I've learned so far is that only those things, on which there is consensus of the whole umma should be considered religion, otherwise local religious rituals and customs (and that include Saudi Arabia as well for this reason) can very well be because of cultural effects. TruthSpreader^reply 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Courts

The article says: "Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs". This sentence is not accurate. The dhimmis had their own courts in the cases related to them and sometimes they won the court, though they did have disadvantages. The source is Tritton 1970. But I couldn't find the name of source. I think the sentence is flawed so please provide the source so that I can check it. Otherwise I may use other sources to replace this sentence. Thanks --Aminz 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Googled it and found this "Tritton, Arthur S. The Caliphs and Their non-Muslim Subjects: A Critical Study of the Covenant of Umar. London: Frank Cass, 1970." hope that helps aminz. This quote is very important as i does accurately describe Dhimmi, the courts the could testify in were there own not those of their rulers. I call being falsely accused and not being able to defend yourself in court a disadvantage but thats me using british understatement. Hypnosadist 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tritton's book was originally published in the 1930s. The al-Qattan article cited is the most recent research. It confirms that when the testimony of a Muslim and non-Muslim were in direct conflict the word of the Muslim always or virtually always prevailed. Christians and Jews had their own courts so that their family and business matters could be heard under their own traditional laws. However, they often chose to use the Muslim courts instead. Non-Muslims also took out cases against Muslims in the Muslim courts. I have summarised the article as carefully as I could but would be happy if someone else looked at it for a second opinion. Itsmejudith 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's correct Judith. My point was that "unable to defend themselves in courts" is true in cases which involved Muslims. I also didn't know that the Dhimmis often chose to use the Muslim courts instead. So, I think this sentence needs a bit of modification.

Thanks Hypnosadist for the source. --Aminz 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmi in action

Found this and because of the above two threads i thought i'd post it.

A Judicial Case in which the Supreme Court of Egypt Decided that Christians Are Infidels and Could Not Testify in the Court Against Muslims. Supreme Court, Domestic Section, Egypt, 5/19/1970

A childless, wealthy Christian woman donated half of her property to a Christian charity organization in Alexandria; the other half was left to her relatives. When she died, she was buried in a chapel built with her money. One of her nephews (a Muslim) claimed that his aunt adopted Islam before her death, making him the only beneficiary according to Islamic principles. There were no official records to confirm his claim according to the government requirement of registering religion changes. The nephew bought his aunt’s cook (a Muslim) and her husband to support his claim. The Christian charity organization and other relatives brought the priests and nuns who took care of her during her illness. All of them were Christians. The decision of the court was as follows:

All the witnesses of the defendants are non-Muslims (Christians). Their testimony is invalid because they are infidels. No infidel can testify against a Muslim. The Muslim nephew was given all of his aunt’s property, because according to Islamic principles, no non-Muslim should inherit property from a Muslim.

A Judicial Case in which the Supreme Court of Alexandria Decided that a Muslim Girl Who Converted to Christianity Is Legally Dead.

District Attorney, Alexandria, Egypt, 5/28/1972

As long as the defendant was a Muslim who adopted Christianity and got married, she is considered dead. Her marriage to a Christian is invalid and she should be separated from her husband or jailed.

A Judicial Case in which the Administrative Court of Egypt Decided that a Former Christian Who adopts Islam Cannot renounce Islam and Adopt Christianity Again.

Administrative Court, April 8, 1980

The Case

Mr. Gamel Youssef Hanna, a Christian, adopted Islam on 3/14/1953 and changed his name to Gamel Youssef Badawi and has an identification card as a Muslim. On 5/31/1974 he rejoined his church and readopted Christianity. He applied to change the religion on his identification card. The Identification Department refused to make such change because there is no apostasy in Islam. Mr. Gamel Youssef Hanna (now) presented his case to the Administrative Court.

The Court Decision

As long as the plaintiff has adopted Islam and became Muslim, he is considered as apostate if he renounces Islam and adopted another religion. And according to Islamic principles which he is bound by them as a Muslim, his apostasy is not acceptable. Therefore, he is not allowed to change his religion to the former one of his identification card.

According to article 46 of the Egyptian Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion does not contradict the second article which states that Islam is the state religion, because Islam calls for such freedom. This freedom which is guaranteed by the Constitution gives to every person the right to believe in any of the heavenly religions according to his conscience without coercion. However, such freedom does not supersede the Islamic principles for those who adopt Islam. In this case Islamic principles should be applied on those who adopt Islam which forbid the Muslim to change his (or her) religion. Thus, he does not have the right to renounce Islam.

This is dhimma in action. Hypnosadist 14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the info Hypnosadist. --Aminz 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic

Someone is putting off topic information into this article. I.E. harbi & musta'min. Why not put it in another article?--67.175.242.13 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Also please put new sections at the bottom of the page. Arrow740 05:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Troy S. Thomas a reliable source? and where in the article does it say the statement mentioned in the article. --Aminz 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is concievable that the concepts of harbi & musta'min exist. But I don't see how they are pertinent to the article.

Arrow740: I don't care where you put it, but don't put it here. Good writing is concise and focused. Your edit has nothing to do with dhimi status. Also, the passage you added to the intro is not referenced anywhere else in the article.--67.175.242.13 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, The sentences are not properly sourced. Those concepts probably existed in some Islamic periods but not today. That's why we need reliable sources for that. --Aminz 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that material about non-Dhimmis is generally not relevant here.Proabivouac 09:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I have removed this even more irrelevant "tolerance" section[9] - if the treatment of non-Dhimmis by Muslims is irrelevant, how much more so is the treatment of non-Dhimmis by non-Muslims. Sticking closely to the topic of Dhimma will spare us much unnecessary debate.Proabivouac 09:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, that was not the point of the section. This is the way Lewis and Cohen started their book. It explains the history of understanding of the meaning tolerance towards one's subjects. --Aminz 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No wikilawyering, please, everyone. If treatment of non-Dhimmis by Muslims is off topic, you cannot turn around and say that treatment of non-Dhimmis by non-Muslims is on-topic; that is quite basic.Proabivouac 09:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, the section is not about the treatment of non-Dhimmis by non-Muslims. It is about the reasons why Islam (being a monotheitic religion) is potentially non-tolerant and that the historical ideas regarding toleration. --Aminz 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

67.175.242.13, that's an important point giving context to the issue here. I don't agree with your summary as you removed the advent of new ideas and how it affected our understanding and definitions of tolerance. --Aminz 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, now. I've seen this before on many articles, and the theme is always the same. Whenever something which by contemporary standards is considered bad was done in the name of Islam, then a certain editor feels compelled to allege that Jews and Christians did this, too. This is what Merzbow aptly called "defensive writing."Proabivouac 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it was Zora who called it that. But anyways, I'm split on the relevance of this section; but I think I'm OK with the last edit by the anon Mr. 65.whatever who moved and shrunk the material a bit. - Merzbow 09:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, we are not here to condemn anybody. There is nothing wrong with providing the context. Yes, I think it is wrong to write about what someone did without mentioning its culture and era. --Aminz 09:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you oppose discussing the treatment of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims? Doesn't that likewise provide context?Proabivouac 09:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide context to which historical point? We are here talking about the medieval "definitions" of tolerance. --Aminz 09:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that Dhimmi had it easy vs. non-Dhimmi? Same point as you're trying to make, right?Proabivouac 09:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I don't really understand. Muslim attitude towards Pagans were intolerant. The attitude was tolerant towards Dhimmis by the definition of tolerance at that time. We are giving context to the "definitions" of the concepts, and explain their development. --Aminz 09:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The passage that was originally disputed in this sections discussed Muslim attitudes towards non-Dhimmi. Doesn't that also give context? Topicality is the metric by which we can prevent "context" from being an occasion for POV. Suppose I went to French Revolution and added a mention of the Banu Qurayza, lest readers get the mistaken impression that the French are a uniquely cruel people for resorting to beheading?Proabivouac 10:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, we can not add something irrelevant because it can indirectly give context. We go directly and "explain the context" rather than giving it through examples. Please let me know what exactly the readers should understand from "Muslim attitudes towards non-Dhimmi"? That thing might merit inclusion but not "Muslim attitudes towards non-Dhimmi". I hope I am clear. --Aminz 10:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What I Think About Context: I think that saying that the jews had it better as dhimmis is being appologetic. It is like saying, "Sure, we were a little bad, but look at what you did!" I don't think that should be in the article. But, I think placing attitudes in context is importaint because people tend to have a Kingdom of Heaven view of history. They take modern concepts like freedom and tolerence (which were present in the film but absent in midieval thought...) and assuming they were present in midieval civilizations. I would certainly allow context in an article on the inquisition. All in all, I don't feel it is that importiant enough to warrent a complete section.--67.175.242.13 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cohen states that it seems that all the monotheistic religions in power throughout the history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions." I think this can be removed if it is replaced with another sentence. The focus should be on historic attitudes rather than just pointing out that everyone did it.--67.175.242.13 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proa, please note that I am not adding some irrelevant incident so that the reader gets an idea of the context. We are directly explaining the context. We are saying how people defined tolerance back then. Is that not clear? --Aminz 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed Mind I do think that context is importaint. People should understand that tolerence as it exists today was not a virtue in the past. But, I just dont think even my edited section does a good job of explaining that. --67.175.242.13 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Does anyone have sources linking this to Dhimmi? It seems perfectly obvious that the years of the armenians being seen as less human (dhimmi) made it ok to commit this crime just like nazi propaganda made the holocaust possible but thats OR without a source. Hypnosadist 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the nazi propidanda only took a decade, not 400 odd years. This does not deserve it's own section, and I would not want the drama of the armenian genocide to spill over to this topic. Also, the causes of the Armenian Genocide are undoubetly complex.--67.175.242.13 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypno, the massacre was down to the Young Turks and they were a militantly secularist force. Not an Islamic or Islamist one at all, but the opposite. It happened at the very point when the dhimmi status was dissolved. And please don't put too much weight on the British sources cited in the Armenian Genocide article: they were hardly disinterested observers. Itsmejudith 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Judith it seems i was not clear enough, i'm not questioning the simple fact the Young Turks did this. What i'm saying is that the previously instilled hate did not disappear overnight when they came to power, so it was as usual the minorities that got it in the neck first when civil strife happens. Another example would be that a 1950's lynching in the deep south of america comes from the hate laid down by the actions and attitudes of the 1750's trans-atlantic slave trade. Also if refugees are taken in by muslim groups/nations due to honoring the dhimmi contract this needs to be noted. Hypnosadist 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have a source for it to hand, Hypnosadist may have a point. The issue of the dhimma was indeed raised in the context of the Armenian genocide when the Hashemite ruler Sharif Hussein wrote to his sons Faisal and Abdallah, who were the field commanders of the Arab Revolt, ordering them to protect Armenians fleeing from the Turks as they were ahl al-dhimma. Palmiro | Talk 21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The section that Strothra keeps re-adding makes no mention of anything to do with the dhimma. If a relevant cite isn't provided soon, I'm going to remove it. - Merzbow 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats sort of why i started this section because i don't think the current Strothra edit links in with dhimmi and should not be in. On the other hand i think that the subject needs talking about and possible inclusion. What do you think Strothra? Hypnosadist 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since dhimma are non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state, I would say that it applies. One can claim that the Young Turks were secularists, but that ignores the influence the ulama has held over the Turkish government even to the present. Yet that only begs many more questions and interpretations of Turkish history and culture. Regardless, I'm not going to be involved in this issue much longer so you can remove it as you wish. I do know that it was an issue then, but at a time when I'm leaving Wiki, I'm not going to take out more time to find sources. I doubt there will be any solution to the Islamic nature of the Turkish/Ottoman state in this forum when it's a highly debated issue among scholars and the public, but I'm sure the issue will come up again. I would agree with removing it for now and keep the discussion going. --Strothra 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A Wikieditor who is polite and sensible?!! I am in disbelief. The thing I would like to see is a statement that explicitly shows the relation between dhimmi status and the genocide. --67.175.242.13 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Since dhimma are non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state" - make that "traditional" Islamic states. The paragraphs directly prior to the one you added make it clear that the Ottomans dismantled the elements of dhimma long before these events. And today, states like Saudi Arabia and Iran do not enforce dhimmi laws or enforce them only sporadically, even though they proclaim themselves Islamic states. This is not to say they don't oppress religious minorities, they just don't followed the framework of dhimma. - Merzbow 01:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, Saudi Arabia readily has "religious police" who persecute Christians and other non-Muslims who engage in any organized worship in the nation, that seems worse than Dhimma and possibly worth noting. However, it's a discussion not tied in to this. Perhaps an article Religious persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim states needs starting? One Elephant went out to play... 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there wasn't an article like that already, but I'm too lazy to search. Anyone? - Merzbow 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Try criticism of Islam--67.173.142.168 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to request that people please not re-add any material on the Armenian genocide unless they can cite it with a source that ties the subject to the dhimma somehow. As can be seen above, there are good arguments why this is not relevant. - Merzbow 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this request. This article is not Non-Muslims in majority-Muslim states, but specifically about dhimma and dhimmi.Proabivouac 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I third the motion. Hypnosadist 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed?

Can we workk on getting rid of that damned disputed tag?--67.175.156.20 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, there hasn't been any recent talk to support its inclusion. - Merzbow 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

al-Rashid

Does anyone have a source for the idea that Haroun al-Rashid forced Jews to wear a conical hat and a yellow belt? I cannot find any reference anywhere except in WP where it is in several articles. If it is in one of Bat Ye'or's books, what is her source? Thanks. Itsmejudith 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

T. Kisch, The Yellow Badge in History, in: Historia Judaica XIX, 1957;

A. Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume, London 1973; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.213.205 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Undescriptive Words: Inferior/Superior/Supremacy

I've been reading some of the history of this article and some of the past discussion on the talk page. Going through the article, looking for these words, I often come across parts of the article that seem suspiciously non-neutral. At the very least, these words are not specific enough to explain the status of dhimmi. Saying dhimmi were inferior, or muslims were superior, or even that muslims were supreme: what does that mean? Is this the same as white supremacy, suggesting an almost subhumanity for dhimmi? Or is it the supremacy of allah, while you acknowledge that your religion is somehow inferior? The article isn't specific. I'm worried that the author might be choosing vague language on purpose. The author even appears to cite such relative terms to Bernard Lewis, which might give it the credibility of one expert but does nothing to give it specificity. These are starting to seem like weasel words.

Rather than somehow defining 'supreme' or 'inferior' for the scope of this article, it would be better to choose more descriptive terminology. If dhimmi are being compared to someone, that comparator should be explicit. And rather than stating vaguely that dhimmi were inferior or superior to that comparator, this article should attempt to describe what the dhimmi didn't have or did have. There's a world of difference between "X is inferior", "X is inferior to Y", and "X prayed to Y's God / X abided by Y's restrictions". That would be much more useful for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.2.153 (talk)

let me expand on this thought. supremacy has a specific meaning. it would be better to clarify whether this is racial supremacy or just the rule of law. supremacy is as vague as saying muslims are better than jews. 65.95.157.159 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Its moral supremacy IMHO. As Islam is the one true faith of the one true god many adherents claim the right to dictate how anyone it can control, the way that they should live, this is exemplified by dhimmi, terrorism and the "democratic" implimentation of sharia on non-muslim. It is no different to the moral supremacism of the british empire or racial supremacism.Hypnosadist 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would the choice be either "racial supremacy" or "rule of law"? The former is an anachronism, and the latter is meaningless. It doesn't really matter, though; "supremacy" is the word the reliable source used. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The rule of law is still an important concept in political science. Sorry it is meaningless to you Jay. Itsmejudith 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

the choice isn't between two things. there are lots of ways one people can be considered superior to another. rule of law is when one person's laws are imposed on another person. or, if hypnosadist is right that minorities had to admit Islam was a superior religion, then we should use moral superiority to make this article more clear. the original source may have used the word supremacy, but without additional context the term is meaningless. it's a weasel word BECAUSE people can project any meaning onto it that they wish. i'm trying to negotiate here. my request is not very onerous at all. i only want to clarify what the heck supremacy means in this context. 65.95.157.159 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right that specifics are much more useful than generalities and that words such as "supremacy" can obscure more than they clarify. We cannot change the words used by sources, however. A solution may be to give longer quotes from the authors who try to explain this unfamiliar medieval concept to modern readers. Itsmejudith 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

i hope someone can make this a priority. the term needs additional context from the original source or it needs to be cross-referenced with another source that discusses the same concept. is there something we can do to flag this ambiguity? 65.95.156.194 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaza

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/more_gaza_multiculturalism.html Zeq 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

i find the claim that most converted voluntarily dubious considering all the restrictions, harrasments and other such "respectfull" acts of disrepect to non muslims in most the islamic controlled areas. Jaakobou 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you provide a source that contradicts the Lewis cite provided, the tag isn't going to stay. - Merzbow 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

i've been asked in a revert to read the cited sources, however, there's two sources - Lewis (1984); Stillman (1979) - and while i trust both did made those claims. (1) the book names are not even mentioned and (2) these are two sources.. i.e. the phrasing, because it's contested, should be "according to Lewis and Stillman...". i plan on referencing my observation a little in the near future. Jaakobou 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

i just noticed this in the refrences:

• "Bosworth, C. E. (1982). The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam In Benjamin Braude and B. Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society 2 vols., New York: Holmes & Meier Publishing"

and i note that the book concentrates on the ottoman empire rather than the entire history of islam, which further validates my claim that the statement is a bit of a stretch. Jaakobou 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"the phrasing, because it's contested, should be "according to Lewis and Stillman...". " - which reliable and authoritative academics contest this? ITAQALLAH 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

well, reliable is subjective, i've just seen a book by robert spencer which is considered by many as authoritative.... for starters, i'm worried about "stretching" of the ottoman islamic rule to cover the entire Islamic expansion/occupation era... i'm also worried, when i can't quite find the book names of references without deep "investigations" in the article... it shows that the referencing system is not user friendly (to say the least).. and last, i could not find the stillman book name, which worries my yet again about what seems to me as a dubious statement. Jaakobou 18:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

i've been asked to provide some sort of backing to the dubious claims, and i respond by presenting allahdad incident, mouza desert exile, the hope simpson testimony about the jews in yemen at 1900, the libels recorded by Dr. Y.M.Landau about the 1870-1892 persecutions and libel in Egypt, the way Islam treated and still treats ownership, the islamization of jerusalem (ummayad dynasty - 715AD), the islamization of medina, did you hear that there was a decree where a dhimmi could not walk the street with his head higher than a muslims' head? ... or that you were not allowed to either build or renovate a religious place which was not muslim? not really makes for a "most of them voluntarily converted" situation does it? .. not to mention all of these places which were forcibly converted into mosques. (lookup dahar al-omar mosque in akko)... there's plenty of proof to my dubious claims. Jaakobou 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

that's known as original research. ITAQALLAH 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

for our purposes, reliability isn't subjective - as we have clear cut policies and guidelines relating to us how to ascertain what is reliable or otherwise (see WP:V, WP:RS). and in application of these principles, we can quite unequivocally conclude that Spencer isn't particularly reliable, as much as Zakir Naik isn't reliable here. {{dubious}} is used when you have a solid reason to doubt the factual accuracy of what has been written. speculating over the book title or referencing system isn't well-grounded. i have checked the Lewis ref in question, here are some quotes as follows:

• (p. 17) In the early centuries of Islamic rule, there was little or no attempt at forcible conversion, the spread of the faith being effected rather by persuasion and inducement. ;
• (p. 151) Cases of forced conversion to Islam are very rare in Islamic history.

here is also an extract from David Waines' book "An Introduction to Islam", published by Cambridge Uni. Press:

• (p. 53) Examples of forced conversion exist, despite the clearest scriptural prohibition (2:256) against such practice, but in any case appear to have been rare.

-- ITAQALLAH 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

nothing OR about it, each is a case where Islam forced itself on the people - i'll try to inspect the sources you've given, for the moment a statement such as "In the early centuries...." or "...in any case appear to have been rare" are easily persuasive when taken out of proper context - i see no mention of any of the incidents i've mentioned and don't know the scope of the books used for this quotation... i can easily misquote books also to create/stretch a "most" affirmation while the book did not include the entire scope of conversions. Jaakobou 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Clothing

About Arrow's reversions, I am fairly certain that Ye'or should be avoided as a source for this: see my comments here on clothing in particular. Hornplease 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A long while ago we reached consensus (thanks to Merzbow) that we would avoid making statements sourced only to Bat Ye'or. Since then, I've been searching high and low for any other reference to distinctive dress during the reign of Haroun Al-Rashid and found nothing. If anyone can find any kind of corroboration, please re-add the fact, or if you can trace it back to Bat Ye'or's source, then we can re-examine it. But I'm sure that in the meantime it must stay out. Itsmejudith 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think she is an appropriate source for non-controversial statements of fact (she has done a lot of research on the topic from primary documents), but controversial statements from her should usually be corroborated by other sources. - Merzbow 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I've established that this in particular is a place where she is not trustworthy. Hornplease 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't. Arrow740 05:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain. Did you read the quote I linked in the diff above? Hornplease 06:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, sorry if I misrepresented your position. Would you agree that this should stay out unless we can identify what the original source was? I would say it is controversial because Haroun Al-Rashid was one of the "rightly guided" caliphs. One reason I think it is important to be able to trace the details back to the primary sources was that we had to deal a long time ago with the contents of the Pact of Omar, which Bat Ye'or tended to treat as a reliable source of early Islamic practice, although many recent scholars have shed doubt on its age. Itsmejudith 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, many times I have problems recalling what I myself wrote months ago. But anyways I have no problem with leaving this particular statement out, since it appears uncorroborated by other sources. - Merzbow 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Humiliation

Shouldn't this section be merged with the discussion earlier on in the page about the interpretation of 'saghiroon'?Hornplease 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some of the later discussion of Qur'anic verses/hadith can be moved to "Relevant texts". - Merzbow 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Most conversions were voluntary?

This sentence is highly based on Islamists POV.Dhimmis were discriminated and under the suppression by islam.In this condition,we can't call their conversions to islam as "voluntary".222.225.180.4 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what the source, Lewis, says. If you have a contradictory source, present it here. - Merzbow 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary in the same sense that giving money to avoid being beaten is voluntary. This is too often excused in that they "chose" to 'revert' instead of "choosing" to remain in a lower class with extra taxes and little legal protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.171 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is riddled with Bernard Lewis quotations. So quite clearly its pushing an islamist POV.

Lewis has been convicted of Genocide Denial (of Armenians by Turks) by the French legal system.

So how can Bernard Lewis possibly be regarded as a reliable source on treatment of non-muslims? It's no different to using David Irving as a source in an article on the treatment of Jews in 1930s Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.97.229 (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of Bernard Lewis for his orientalist biases. But this attack on him is utterly ridiculous. There is no reason to engage in ad hominem attacks to undermine his years of scholarship. I would never judge someone's credibility in binary terms ("perfectly credible" versus "completely untrustworthy"), but I would have to concede that Lewis is basically a credible source on Middle Eastern studies. If both of us have a problem with Lewis's opinion, it is up to both of us to find sources that are offer a different perspective and are still attributable to credible scholars. 65.95.141.90 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is Jewish, and he acknowledges the murders of hundreds of thousands of Armenians. He considers the Armenian Genocide to have been an ethnic cleansing in response to Armenian allegiences with the Russian Empire during WWI, and therefore constituted a security threat. He does not deny the harshness or the mass amounts of death, but he doesn't consider it to have been a systematic genocidal plot. Further, the Armenian Genocide was declared a genocide in retrospect, because the term did not even exist before the Holocaust. It would essentially be like rewriting history and declaring the Third Punic War and the Mongol Invasions to have involved systematic genocide. Both of those wars were fought for tactical reasons, not because of an idealogical, racial hatred. As I said, he DOES acknowledge the historical consensus when it comes to the amount of Armenians dead. He doesn't downplay the amount of death.. Regardless of his positions on the Armenian Genocide, Bernard Lewis is one of the most esteemed Professors in the world, and you aren't really in a position to detract from his scholarly works simply because of his political stances. Bernard Lewis is considered to have been one of the chief academic engineers behind the War in Iraq, so he's hardly sympathetic to Islamism. With the exception of the Safavid Empire and the decline of Muslim Spain, conversion was never imposed by force. Even Aurangzab in the Mughal Empire was more concerned with murdering Hindus than converting him (and with the exception of Aurangzab, Hindus also received relatively fair treatment for minorities of that time period). Certainly there was discrimination, but that would be like saying the Phillipines were "force converted" by the Spanish Empire. The Christians had empires too, and non-Christians were discriminated against; that doesn't mean those religious minorities were "forced" to convert. Religious tolerance is a 19th, 20th and 21st century phenomenon. The Muslim World wasn't behind in this respect until the post-Enlightment period. Greeks and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were generally more successful than Arab Muslims were, despite the "dhimmi" status. In Iran today, Armenians and Persian Jews are both more successful than the Khuzestani Arabs. - 68.43.58.42 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, and remember while in Christian Iberia (after 1492) Muslims had to choose to convert their religion (Islam) and language (Arabic- 5-7 million users, during the 11th and 12th centuries) or die in Islamic countries non-Muslims only had to pay an extra-tax, which seems to be very humanistic for standards of medieval world. Talk 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about this subject, nor about the sources that are being referenced. However it seems obvious that when a minority religious group is accorded restricted rights, it can't ever be said with a straight face that numbers of that minority convert to the majority faith "voluntarily". The insistence of editors of this article on sourced objections to this claim of voluntariness discredits the entire article. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

However, it doesn't matter what any of us "think" about what may or may not have been some peoples reasons for doing something centuries ago b/c that would be original research and AFAIK none here are reputable sources for information on history. Its can be even worse when, like you said, you don't know anything about the subject. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lewis is Jewish and he's considered to be one of the academic architects behind the Iraq War; Edward Said hates him, also. Yeah, he seems like a real Islamist. Discriminatory policies are not unique to the Muslim world, actually. Christians treated minorities in Europe significantly harsher than Muslims did, for example, all the way until the 18th century. Discriminatory taxation policies and social humiliation were the norm in the Muslim world, whereas pogroms were the norm in Christian Europe to deal with minorities. The early Muslim empires, particularly the Umayyads, actually tried to discourage conversion to Islam. No sources have been provided that contradict Lewis, and Lewis admittingly states that the Muslims provided relative tolerance compared to their contemporaries, at least, until the Enlightenment. Women in Europe, for example, had no rights whatsoever (even with respect to property), until the 18th and 19th centuries. This thread is also rather old. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Lewis is Jewish" Interesting you mention that first. I does not matter if people here think Lewis is an islamists or the great Satan's puppet master, either his academic opinion meets our standard or not. Take it to the RS noticeboard if you think he's not. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lewis being a Jew and a pro-Zionist would make it impossible for him to be an Islamist or Islamist sympathizer, as earlier posters were implying. I think you misinterpreted my post (or simply didn't read it). Please read the conversation in its entirety next time. Thanks. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lewis is used on many articles, if you do not think he is an RS, take it to the RS noticeboard. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said he wasn't; it is apparent that you are seriously illiterate or you are purposely executing a straw man fallacy. I have actually been defending the usage of Bernard Lewis; please reread my posts (and my clarifications for my posts) if you still fail to understand this. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV and WP:AGF, if you re-read my post it says "if people here" talking about all the editors. I refuse to debate if people are "Islamist sympathizer"'s or "academic architects behind the Iraq War", is Lewis an RS here? YES. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just b/c your intention might have been to talk to the general populace here and not just one user doesn't mean it was very efficiently done. Your first mistake was to put your response in the next step after his post; your second mistake was to cite a piece of his post; your third mistake is that you refer to him first in Interesting you mention the first before you refer to the general populace in if people here; and finally your fourth mistake was to respond to him again in the same manner if not less constructive disregarding his confusion on your interpretation of his post.

Also, he did not act in incivility or bad faith, he was disturbed that you disregarded twice what he was trying to get across in his first post. In short he wasn't responding to anything you said so I don't know why you had to relate to his post. It looks like you 2 agree on the same thing anyways, just you wanted to tackle the debate from 2 different directions. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Having just viewed this article for the first time I have to say the overriding theme appears to be one of presenting dhimmitude as akin to being under the protection of a benevolent power - which of course is the islamist view, that by forcing people to follow Mohammed you are forcing them to follow the truth and so it's all good (even if others have to die as coercion). There are statements such as "conversion is never by force" (compare with sura 9:29) which contradict news reports (eg this report from July 08, Nov 2005) from areas with Sharia and non-muslim populations and is so clearly at odds with all sources on early Islam (cf the outcomes of the early battles of Mohammed such as with the Banu Quraiza).

Anyway. The Lewis reference seems a bit out on it's own. Everything is "because Lewis says". Also many scholarly works appear to be being rejected for reasons such as "they aren't a scholar in this field". That's spurious, a scholar can do research in any field, the work is either scholarly one or not, it doesn't matter who wrote it. As a small few others appear to be entreating I'd rather include the extreme views and let the reader establish for themselves what inferences can be made. Lastly, this article is not about how any other religious group conducts itself; because someone behaved worse does not make persecution of those denounced as dhimmi any better. 91.108.187.120 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest specific changes based on what reliable sources say. Be aware that practically every sentence in this article is the result of exhaustive effort at compromise, so high-profile changes definitely need to be run by talk first. - Merzbow (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine precedents -- "discriminatory legislation"?

I would really like to see what Bernard Lewis has to say about the legislation being "discriminatory". Bernard Lewis has acknowledeged that dhimmis, for their time, had better treatment than other religious minorities in the world. I am concerned that this word actually comes from the POV of one wikipedian, or one source, but is misattributed to some kind of consensus between "modern historians". I suspect that dropping the word "discriminatory" would reflect actual academic consensus, and would replacing "against" with "applying to". But I reserve judgments until I see a quote from a reliable source or two. 64.231.195.228 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Is anyone watching this page? Familiar with the subject? Is the lead to Dhimmitude accurate? Could someone perhaps add any relevant sources to help the lead?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

The term "second-class citizens" is inaccurate as it applies a modern concept to pre-modern times. In modern times, people living in a certain country are considered equal. The countries feel appropriate to discriminate between their citizens and the citizens of the neighboring countries in terms of providing welfare, rights,etc. Back then, the divisions were universally made based on faith. The sensitivity that we today have about equal rights of the minorities didn't exist back, not because people today are more smart but because the conception of the relations was essentially different.

Regarding the term "Dhimmitude" is used by certain writers to refer to a specific conception of the life of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. According to Bernard Lewis

"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.

--Be happy!! (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bostom

Andrew Bostom is not a reliable source, and thus will be removed. If anyone has any objections, please state them here.Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... the only things cited from him in this article is a couple of translations, not his opinions. What is your issue with the translations presented? - Merzbow (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are unreliable, reliable sources are reliable. I will remove unreliable sources, as I'm sure you'd the same.Bless sins (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there are many gradations. Sources can be fine in some contexts, not fine in others. The more reliable a source is, the more heavily it can be leaned upon. What's being quoted from Bostom is simply a couple translations, and the book is from a major publisher (which in fact means it does pass at least the minimum test of reliability). How about the translation cited to "tafsir.com" (a web site, with no indication of who is providing the translation)? So far you still haven't disputed the accuracy of this translation. Did you even try to look for other sources for the passages in question before proposing removing these? - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Prometeus books is "a major publisher" of heavily biased and radical opinions (such as Bostom's). I'm not sure if "tafsir.com" is reliable. If you think it isn't, then remove it. I don't have to dispute the accuracy, only the reliability. Remember that wikipedia doesn't care about the truth, only the verifiability.

Where did you get the idea that a major publisher can't publish opinions that you consider "heavily biased and radical"? Is this another one of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT ventures into tiresome wikilawyering? rudra (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence of Bostom's reliability, I shall remove him.Bless sins (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking over Prometheus' catalog on their website, I see no specific ideological basis. And no, you won't remove him until consensus is established on talk. - Merzbow (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So you really think Bostom and Prometheus books are reliable? I've opened a discussion here.Bless sins (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not equal "unreliable". rudra (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What does a page about XfD discussions have to do with this? ITAQALLAH 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should separate the actual reality of how Dhimmis were treated from the fantasies of the commentators. And when discussing the view of commentators, we should provide the range of opinion, rather than cherry picking quotes that support one particular interpretation. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Actual reality"? As in, Islamic and pro-Islamic sources only? "Fantasies"? As in, the rest? Please say what you mean. rudra (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction between Jurists and Commentators in later Sunni Islam. The jurists were usually setting up the laws and not the commentators. That's why I am asking for the separation between words and the actions.

And there are other interpretations of 9:29. Some say that the Qur'anic verse 9:29 does not imply "the necessity for a humiliating procedure, which later rigorists claimed to find in it" as Claude Cahen puts it. It is rather submission to the Islamic laws governing the society. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Al-Ghazzali wasn't a jurist? rudra (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to best of my knowledge. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we really arguing over whether an associate professor of medicine and regular commentator on Fox and FrontPage Magazine is a reliable scholar of Islam? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was about a translation of Al-Ghazzali by a third party (Michael Schub) in a book edited by Bostom. The rest is just the usual round of wikilawyering. rudra (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And Michael Schub specifically links the translation to the status of Dhimmis? What does he say on the subject? Or in that interpretation are we depending on Boston? Because that's the point with primary sources, right? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The point was sourcing a quote of Al-Ghazzali in the framework of a quote farm (in the relevant portion of the article), about jizya, as it happens. The text needs no interpretation. rudra (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Was this a notable opinion of Al-Ghazzali's? Did he repudiate it later, or were there political circumstances that shaped it? Does it in fact refer specifically to jizya at all times, or a time-specific interpretation? And so on. If I were to, in a notional Human Sacrifice in Antiquity article, put in the Bible verse about Jephtha's daughter without clarification or summary from any of the hundreds of reliable people who've discussed its relevance (or not) to sacrifice over the years, I wouldn't be doing a good job.

Ditto here. Incidentally, WP:PSTS is being warred over, but even currently it says "accuracy and applicability" of primary sources have to be obvious; the long-standing consensus before a brouhaha this past week over articles on comics was a&a of ps have to be obvious or attested to by sec sources, IIRC. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the notion that Al-Ghazzali's views might not be notable strikes me as ridiculous. The quote farm here is overkill (in the sense of going into details and variations) for the well-known fact that dhimmis "must pay the poll-tax under humiliating conditions" (as Schacht summarized it in his Introduction to Islamic Law). I half-suspect the quote-farm was introduced in the first place to forestall the outright denial and demands for citations by the whitewash brigade had a "secondary source" been adduced instead. rudra (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an argument against "primary source" quote farms in general, which would wreak havoc on a whole bunch of Islam-related articles if applied consistently. Which, of course, it won't. rudra (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Those quotefarms are an excrescence wherever they are, and are usually wholesale copies of equivalent quotefarms from various blogs and advocacy sites. (A look at the transclusions of {{quotefarm}} rather effectively demonstrates that. All political hot-button articles.) Any dents in them are welcome. Consistency is a distant goal. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing primary source quotefarms would wreak havoc on Islam-related articles? I don't believe so. I personally have helped in removing this unencyclopedic presentation from many of the articles on this space. If you can point me to any core articles still suffering from this problem, I will be glad to help out. ITAQALLAH 12:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I scare-quoted "primary source" because of the often-seen filibustering tactic of casting foreign-language secondary sources as somehow "primary". It's especially amusing for Islam, where practically everything is authority and hearsay. rudra (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Al-Ghazzali et al. aren't primary sources. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I should hope not, but I get the distinct impression that Rr disagrees. rudra (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Al-Ghazalli is as primary as Augustine. Its got nothing to do with foreign languages. Its got something to do with selection of passages, the level of closeness to the article subject, and so on. In an article on Jizya, a major interpreter of the law on jizya as it was then applied is as primary as a Supreme Court judgment in a second-amendment related case today. In both cases, we need to let other people tell us what they're actually saying. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. By this logic, I can't cite Oldenberg for anything on Vedic meter because, goldarnit, he wrote in German, and I need someone other than the translator to tell me in English what he said, meant, etc. etc. etc. This is casuistry. rudra (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Oldenberg's OK. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with the language; its got everything to do with whether it is reasonably close to the subject of the article. Oldenberg is not as close to the subject of an article on vedic meter the way Augustine is as close to the subject of an article on just war or as al-Ghazali is to the subject of an article on dhimmi. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, I'm sorry to say. What do you imagine could be "closer" to the subject of Vedic meter than Oldenberg and Bergaigne? rudra (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Vedas, I would imagine. Try to keep up. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would, if you were making sense. Where in the Vedas is there anything about Vedic meter (that would then need explication by a "secondary" source)? rudra (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where in Kipling's poetry is there anything about Kipling's poetry? And yet, obviously, its a primary source. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As are the Vedas and the Quran. So? You mean an exposition of Shafi'i fiqh by Al-Ghazzali is in that ineffable class? rudra (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

However clear we may believe him to be, an eleventh-century exposition is, if not ineffable, best not analysed by us. That sort of thing is precisely what WP:NOR is supposed to prevent.--Relata refero (disp.) 12:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment much on the Oldenburg analogy since I'm not familiar with the context. But I agree with Relata refero's; we need to let secondary sources tell us really what such primary sources mean and how they should be quoted.Bless sins (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldenberg is one of the three Indologists to have (studied and) written specifically about poetic meter in the Rigveda; the signficance of his work has to do with identifying various historical layers in the Vedas. The other two are Bergaigne (in French, before Oldenberg) and E Vernon Arnold (in English, after). Since then, Oldenberg is the only one cited in passing (when someone needed to substantiate a point). So, Oldenberg is the "closest" one could ever get to the subject of Vedic meter. That, according to Rr, would make him "primary" -- except, of course, when it becomes, shall we say necessary, to argue otherwise. rudra (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudra, I do think you have no idea what you're saying. Just because three people have ever written anything on problem X does not mean that they are necessarily the subjects of an article on X. That is like saying in an article on person Y, the only three biographies of the man are primary sources.

The difference to this case is that al-Gazali is himself an interpreter of the law who has been the subject of study by students of the law. It is so glaringly obvious I have no idea where you're slipping up. Not to mention what the frak "necessary" means. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. It's about whether the three can be cited on an article about X. Neither is al-Ghazzali a subject here. There is no difference between citing Oldenberg for, say, the occasional trisyllabic nature of the name "Indra" or the disyllabic nature of the genitive plural suffix -ām (as it happens, on the evidence of meter), and citing Al-Ghazzali for the Shafi'i view of the jizya procedure. In either case, all that matters is that a well-recognized "domain expert" is being cited. Yes, Al-Ghazzali wrote "speculative" works too (as did Oldenberg, for that matter!), but the source here isn't one of them. rudra (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Al-Shafi'i was a jurist while Al-Ghazzali was a commentator. They may say the same thing but do you have a proof for that? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what Al-Shafi'i himself wrote about jizya. That's why we rely on domain experts, like Al-Ghazzali. :-)

Oh, FGS. How do we know that this isn't one of them? That this part of it is not partly speculative? That this discussion of al-Shafi'i is a notable interpretation? That it is the only one, or not a minority viewpoint within al-Ghazali's own work? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By examining the cited source, of course. It's known as verification. But that isn't what's being pushed for here, is it now? rudra (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And why should we trust the average editor's interpretation of a medieval source? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard that Al-Ghazzali's Arabic was obscure. Basically, the point is to verify that he has been quoted accurately and in context. Contrariwise, the passage may have been a straw argument or a quote of some prior mistaken scholar or anything else. Now, if someone suspects misquotation like this, he'll just have to find someone good enough to read Al-Ghazzali's Arabic if he can't himself. Inability to verify is not proof of misquotation, last I thought about the matter. rudra (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Prometheus books has never been considered a reliable publisher on Islam-related articles. Can anyone show how exactly they are a scholarly or respected publisher in the field of Islamic studies? The short answer is: they aren't. Would I trust Bostom to present something that wasn't an unrepresentative biased sample, in its correct context and application? Given the lack of relevant credentials (which amount to the same as Zakir Naik), no. The publisher isn't reliable, the author isn't reliable... what exactly are we arguing over? This issue isn't simply about the question of how accurate these translatons may or may not be. ITAQALLAH 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, I won't argue, it's a small part of the article. But then the "tafsir.com" bit should go as well, since I can find no information about who did that translation. - Merzbow (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its a good thing you brought Bostom and Prometheus books up. Hopefully we'll have a consensus and put an end to disputes.

Regarding tafsir.com: it appears to be a primary source (though I could be wrong). As such it need a reliable secondary source quoting it. That would be a major problem. And yes you're right that since the translator is unknown (as is often the case with questionable sources, e.g. MEMRI), this is also a blow to their reliability.Bless sins (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think we need to go into details about the views of commentators. The article should mainly discuss how taxation were collected in real life. We should however discuss the verse 9:29 briefly and how it has been interpreted. When doing so, we should mention all academic views as well. According to Encyclopedia of the Qur'an (Poll Tax),

It has been demonstrated rather persuasively that the exegetical tradition on q 9:29 bears no relation to the historical conditions of the verse; the verse does seem to have been used by later exegetes as a point of departure for elaborating differences — theological and legal — between Muslims and non-Muslims. Nevertheless, the rationale generally given for the poll tax — a compensation (jazāʾ) in exchange for enjoying the protection (dhimma) of Muslim rule — does demonstrate a certain conceptual continuity with the qurʾānic term jazāʾ...Rubin has concluded that jizya at q 9:29 connotes financial compensation for the loss of income sustained by the rupture of commercial relations with non-Muslim traders who are prohibited, at q 9:28, from approaching Mecca (q.v.). This does seem to be borne out in q 9:29 itself, the opening words of which claim that the people obliged to pay the jizya do not believe in God or judgment day (lā yuʾminūna bi-llāh wa-lā bi-l-yawmi l-ākhir). Book, while connoting divine knowledge and authority, can also serve as a metonymy for treaty, the terms of which were fixed in writing (a kitāb) and included some kind of payment of tribute. Jizya, in fact, occurs in such a context in Ibn Saʿd's history, where the term for the missives (kutub) sent by Muhammad to other groups and rulers connotes both letter and pact. Were, then, the people named in q 9:29 the so-called People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb) or merely tribal groups of varied character which had entered into alliance with the tribal overlordship of Muhammad and his Muslim partisans while not sharing their monotheistic beliefs?....

--Be happy!! (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this. Also, there is a good source for the source and importance of jizya: Courbage & Fargues. It is daft that we are not using it and referring instead to a hotchpotch of primary sources.Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of books on the subject. I see no reason to favor Courbage&Fargues, although I can see how their comparison of Israel with colonial French Algeria could appeal in some quarters... rudra (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would we have to mention the comparison at all? Seems completely OT to me. And do try reading beyond the first review at Amazon. There's not a lot of nuance there. (And don't be snarky abt imj, she hasn't done anything to deserve it.) C&F are more recent than most of the others, but I at least haven't got access to them. Most of their recent online papers appear to be about demographic changes. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazon? Hmm, you're right. That tidbit has done the rounds, apparently (it seems to have grated as much as it has pleased, IFYKWIM). I assume the general lack of reviews is due to the work being in French originally. It seems often to be cited in an offhand way, rarely for specifics. (This was interesting in that C&F share a footnote with Bat Yeor, of all people.) But to address your point, this is a subject where "reliable sources" can be suborned to opposing POVs. Multiple sources are the way to go. rudra (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it appears that they share a lot of footnotes on this issue, usually with a suitable warning tacked on to Yeor's name. IMJ is right, it appears the C&F book is rapidly becoming the norm. What a pity I have no idea what they say, other than that they appear to argue that there was no integration, but not "full segregation or a divided society" either. It appears thing were not black or white, which comes as a grievous shock to me, as it would no doubt to all the devotees of Bat Ye'or. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "black or white" conception would seem to stem from the legalities of it: Islamic law on the subject, "Pact of Umar" as the locus classicus and so on. Naturally, the historical experience diverged, with the subtext of a running ideological war between clerics pushing for strictness and administrators taking more pragmatic views. History isn't easy. rudra (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why, according to one mention I came across, most overall studies aren't very useful. Apparently the first relatively sucessful synthesis is C&F. Ross Brann quotes Udovitch: "It is exceedingly difficult to formulate meaningful and comprehensive generalisations to characterize the main features of the Jewish experience under medieval Islam" and goes on to say a new synthesis by C&F "attempts to strike a genuine balance in assessing the welfare of Jews and Christians..". --Relata refero (disp.) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gerber quote is better, I think. After spending some time with Google Scholar/Books, I'm now not at all convinced that C&F is the norm for anything, except perhaps demographics. rudra (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah. What's with this need for assessments (balanced or no) and generalizations? (I know, I know, WP needs soundbites...) Thematic histories can be the worst. rudra (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Stillman is already used extensively. Typical Stillman: I note the bit about the funeral processions; a footnote in the 1979 edition says "harassment was common in every period". I suspect he meant common to every period, which is what the other sources say. Typical Wikipedia: that footnote is lovingly reproduced in as sensationalist a manner as possible. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tafsir.com

I'm pretty sure that tafsir.com is using a transcription of this edition, i.e. Quran translation by Md Muhsin Khan, and tafsir translation by a supervised team (with "weak" hadiths removed). This site seems to confirm. rudra (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources directly. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's reliability has been challenged above, and I seem to agree with Merzbow. In anycase, Aminz is right, we don't use primary sources directly.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The translation seems reliable, then. Ibn Kathir is a historic, very well-known, commentator on the Qur'an. I'm not sure he can be classified as a primary source. - Merzbow (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The selection seems to be supervised by a group headed by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, so I think it should be considered acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree, but previously on this space Mubarakpuri (and his sira known as Al-Rahiq al-Makhtum, "The Sealed Nectar", published by the Islamic University of Madinah) has been categorised as unreliable, partisan and so on. I don't necessarily agree with that, but can we come to some sort of conclusion about whether or not he qualifies under RS? This is actually part of a wider debate about whether or not we recognise Islamic or non-Western scholarship as reliable.

I'd personally suggest we hold off from using tafsir.com until we can ascertain the reliability of the website and its sources for sure. ITAQALLAH 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the place for the wider debate? (I think not). As for "unreliable", that's the standard smear traded for centuries in Islamic scholarship:-) More to the point perhaps might be Mubarakpuri's grasp of the Shafi'i school -- given that Ibn Kathir is generally classified that way (despite being a student of Ibn Taymiyya) -- and thus whether he is fully attuned to the nuances of expression. Even more relevant might be the endorsements of the translation, if any. Personally, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong in using vetted modern translations of classical works, essentially because of the overall stability of orthodox Islamic law, in view of which a work several hundred years old isn't really as "outdated" as it might otherwise appear. But I understand that there are arguments against this, that we should be relying on up-to-date scholarship only. The problem there, though, is that we have no surety of comprehensive coverage, so if we can't find something, say, less than 25 to 50 years old, what are we supposed to do? rudra (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up a reference for this, but I believe NHM Keller (translator of Al-Misri's Reliance of the Traveller) is on record saying that he hadn't encountered any Salafi or otherwise dubious slanting in the portions of this translation that he had read. Scratch that, I found the original piece by Keller: he found no trace of Ibn Taymiyya's aqida in the parts of Ibn Kathir's tafsir that he had read. Nothing to do with the translation. Sorry. rudra (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We need some more input on primary vs secondary sources. In my view someone from the 14th century is definitely a primary source. There is no way that they are writing within the conventions of modern scholarship. I want to be consistent on this. We shouldn't use Charles Darwin as a main source because there are hundreds of thousands of more recent scholarly texts that cover every aspect that he wrote about. To refuse to use him directly as a WP sources is not a negative reflection on his work.Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the criteria is necessarily the age of the writings, but the distance from the source . If one considers Ghazali (plus the other jurists) to have produced legal opinions/precedents then incorporated into Islamic law in regards to Dhimmi, then perhaps that qualifies them as primary. Then we shouldn't use them except as referenced by a more modern source. - Merzbow (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Ghazali was a jurist. In any case, these scholars usually talk about their own views. In case they summarize the view of all their predecessors, then that may be usable. But I am not a fan of quoting people one by one. It would seem acceptable to me if one notable scholar says something remarkably different from what is already mentioned in the article. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly some users have a very different understanding from mine about the right sort of sources for an article like this so I am taking the point to the reliable sources noticeboard. Not intended as any kind of negative comment on the quality of others' editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the book is acceptable. But tafsir.com doesn't seem to be. I have not seen that tafsir.com is headed by al-Mubarakpuri. Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you questioning whether tafsir.com is an accurate transcription of the Al-Mubarakpuri translation? (FWIW, in my experience, which I admit is not comprehensive, I haven't seen any discrepancies.) As for who is backing tafsir.com, it looks like people with Salafi connections (e.g. quraan.com and salaah.com -- all three sites have links to each other, that is, when they work.) The online transcription of such a large work rates to have been funded, which in a sense would tend to vouch for the accuracy. rudra (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Are you questioning whether tafsir.com is an accurate transcription of the Al-Mubarakpuri translation?" Yes. In my opinion when a scholar puts his name on something it is like he says "I take responsibility for its contents". Thus he goes to great lengths to ensure the work is of the highest quality. I don't see Mubarakpuri's name on the site.Bless sins (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do accidents like typos count, or do you suspect (tendentious) modifications? rudra (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any online transcription being vouched for by scholars. Generally, the issue seems to be how likely it is that the transcribers did a good job (e.g. the MSA texts at USC.) rudra (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As such, it should be possible to replace/enhance any tafsir.com reference with an equivalent reference to volume and page number in the translation. The value of the online link would then be a quick look for people without easy access to the book. rudra (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should refer to the physical book itself and not the online version. Please also note WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says that if you get the information from tafsir.com, you must say that.Bless sins (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SirHippo's edits

(Discussion copied from my talk page) - Merzbow (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverted an edit of this page from saying

"Dhimmi had fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslim religious subjects and more rights than non-Christians in most Christian countries" to removing the word 'most.' Such a statement unfairly indicts all Christian territories and principalities together.

Also,

Over time, many dhimmis converted to Islam, mostly without direct violent coercion. Conversion on pain of death played a significant role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus.

was reverted to

Most conversions were voluntary. Forced conversion played a role in some later periods of Islamic history, mostly in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus.

Considering that dhimmi was an organised form of oppression, albeit a mild one, calling it 'voluntary' is a deceptive use of language violating NPOV. Similarly, the 'forced conversion' talked about in the lower quotation is "Islam or the sword." Calling it anything but conversion on pain of death is deceptive and misleading apologism. SirHippo (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources are more accurate to the previous text. I assume you have read the sources referenced, no? Please do so first, then visit the talk page, and using quotes from the cited sources, show how your text is more accurate. - Merzbow (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment in strongest terms. "Forced conversion" is a euphamism, and removing the word "most" lumps together all Christian societies as one bigoted mass. You can't blame, for instance, Denmark, for the injustice of the Spanish Inquisition. The word "most" belongs there.

I similarly disagree with your reading of Lewis, but I cannot be more specific unless you actually cite [i]which Lewis book you're talking about[/i]. Considering that I have Islam and the West, What Went Wrong, and The Crisis of Islam within arm's reach of where I'm now sitting, I would be most curious as to what passage you're referencing wherein Lewis talks about forced conversions that were [b]NOT[/b] forced on pain of death.SirHippo (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia's own, sourced article on the dynasty and period in question,

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Almohad

The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids' Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147,[1] far surpassed the Almoravides in fundamentalist outlook, and they treated the dhimmis harshly.[2] Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, most Jews and Christians emigrated.[3][4] A few, like the family of Maimonides, eventually fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands,[3] while most of them went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.[5][6]

"Faced with the choice of either death or conversion." I stand by my edit--"forcible conversion" is euphamism for coerced conversion via death threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirHippo (talk • contribs) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's best to stick directly with the wording used by the source for controversial terms like this. I reworded a bit to even more accurately reflect what Lewis is saying. - Merzbow (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Which is why I prefer the wording used in the Almohad article, rather than the euphamistic apologism of the Dhimmi article. I am reverting it.SirHippo (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The version I reworded matches almost exactly what the sources are saying. Your version is clunky and POV. Again, I must ask that you quote the sources referenced in support of your changes. - Merzbow (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the version you reworded used euphamistic language. Wikipedia's own page on the Almohad dynasty uses the specific language of conversion or death, and that's only one example. The version I wrote goes to the length of insisting that such actions were a 'break with the tradition of toleration'--an analysis that Bat Ye'or, and other modern historians would disagree with. You, sir, are the one not in line with a neutral POV.

If you dispute my version because it's 'clunky' by all means change the language. But don't alter the facts to preserve an exaggerated myth of interreligious harmony under Muslim rule for the dhimmis.

Similarly, don't use overgeneralizations to impugn those few medieval Christian principalities that permitted toleration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirHippo (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording I propose is supported by the sources. It is only partisan insofar as the facts support it, and indeed other Wiki pages on this issue use those terms. Unless you can find actual factual justification for disagreeing with the wording, there's no grounds for the reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirHippo (talk • contribs) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"most non-Christians in most domains of medieval Europe" is not what Lewis says, he says "non-Christians in medieval Europe" with no qualifiers. "usually without violent coercion to do so" is not what Lewis says, he says "little or no attempt at forcible conversion", which is a direct quote. The sentence beginning "At times..." is probably accurate, but way too much detail for the lead; the equivalent "In later periods, forced conversions did occur, mostly in the 12th century under" is better. - Merzbow (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as I already told you, until you cite WHICH Lewis book you're referencing, it's impossible to draw any conclusion from the quote since you're the only one who can reach any context. Second of all, such a blanket statement is a gross exaggeration--the Margravate of Brandenburg, which later became the Kingdom of Prussia, was substantially more tolerant of Jews than most, but not all of the Muslim world. Lewis's own position is that while it was GENERALLY better to be a Jew under the Muslims than a Jew under the Christians, he would not say it was ALWAYS better. (See his book "Islam and the West," page 170-180 for his views on exactly why this is GENERALLY true). If you are not going to provide an actual, honest to goodness citation, I can't see how you want to justify a blanket statement that Christian medieval Europe was universally much worse than the medieval Muslim world in its treatment of the Jews.

Second of all, once again saying "forced conversions" is a misleading and inaccurate euphamism. The explicit policy of the Almohed rule was "Convert to Islam or be murdered." 'Forced conversion' is what happened to Edgardo Mortara. What the Almoheds did was coerce conversion under threat of mass murder. Sugar coating the language is the epitome of NPOV weaseling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirHippo (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Jews of Islam", from the referenced page numbers, and as I said, the text is now quoting directly from there. . - Merzbow (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're claiming that Bernard Lewis states that conversion on pain of death was almost exclusively confined to the Almoheds? (Tammarlane must be a figment of my imagination) I don't have that particular Lewis book, I'll have to pick it up and read it this weekend, but pray tell, how does that even begin to explain why you don't call conversion on pain of death what it is, instead choosing to mince words in order to soften the image of one side over another? Oh, and can we use some quotes from, say, Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad, or pretty much anything by Bat Ye'or (for whom the life of minorities under Islam is the specific focus, rather than Lewis's focus on the politics of Islam in relation to the West?) as they say, frankly, quite the opposite of what your weasel words do, and frankly, are quite a lot more accusative than my language. And have the primary sources to back it upSirHippo (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Expulsions after 1948

Is there a reason the expulsions of Jews after the founding of Israel is completely unmentioned in this entire article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirHippo (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable source that ties this to dhimmi... - Merzbow (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Merzbow. The Jews that left the Arab states (whether they were expelled is questionable, since they don't want to return) left secular states, not Islamic ones. Bless sins (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, ties it to dhimmis? We're talking about a mass expulsion of hundred of thousands of dhimmis from Muslim states: it is precisely a dhimmi issue. As for "whether they were expelled is questionable," Jewish exodus from Arab lands... do you really think that if this were a voluntary exodus they would have left all their property, totaling, according to wikipedia, 300 billion dollars, behind? I hope questioning whether the mass expulsions were compelled was a joke.SirHippo (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Scholars seem to think that the historical practice of the dhimma as such ended in the mid-1800s. Nobody is trying to minimize persecutions that happened after that time, this is a narrow technical question of whether they were still treated as dhimmis according to Islamic law. - Merzbow (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in that case the article should clearly note that in the introduction, with some phrasing like "The historically protected status of dhimma is generally considered to have ended in the mid-1800s with the beginning of the final decline of the Ottoman Empire. Modern persecutions of religious and ethnic minorities, such as the Armenian genocide or mass expulsion of the Jews under Muslim Arab regimes are generally seen by scholars as having little continuity with the historical Muslim empires." Or something. And cite scholars to justify that statement in a more in-depth section in the article. I would do it, except... well, I don't believe that it IS discontinuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirHippo (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Atheists and athiesm

The terms "atheist", "atheism", "non-beleivers", etc. are presently (Feb 23, 2009) not mentioned at all in this article. This should be rectified as my surface understanding is that Sharia Law has strong opinions about non-believers. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)