Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dhimmi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:07, 27 June 2006 editHis excellency (talk | contribs)1,381 edits →BAT YE'OR and WP:RS← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:48, 15 November 2024 edit undoZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,819 edits →Categorisation of Tariq Ramadan as a source?: delete violation of WP:BLP policyTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archives=no|search=no}}
] ] ] ]
{{old XfD multi |result='''Speedy Keep''' |date=June 27, 2006 |page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dhimmi}}
== Discrimination is a fact ==
{{not a forum}}
I see lots of political correctness claim by people who try to neutralise the discrimanting facts on Dhimmi. As long as the religion court refuse Dhimmi rights to testify on court, it is discriminate and violation of human rights. I see some people keep pouring more and more diversion by claiming some source "unreliable". Bad news to them : this will not change the facts.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
I don't see how this article "demonise" some religion. Indeed, this is historical facts. Today, if those country that worship the religion fail to "correct" the conditions of Dhimmi, I don't see why we should write "softer tone" over that particular religion. So all facts about discrimination upon Dhimi should stay. ] 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Religion |importance=mid |Interfaith=yes |InterfaithImp= }}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Dhimmi/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
The problem is that some people's 'facts' are loaded with their own bias against islam. We want to get rid of both pro and anti islamic sentiment and be left with the bare facts. In any case, we should try to avoid value judgements. Rather than stating that dhimmitude is descriminitory and a violation of human rights, we should just state how things were and let the reader decide for himself.--] 09:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
The political status of Dhimmis during the time period shouldn't be thought of in terms of todays standards and ideas. Certainly, they were discriminated against. By todays standards, so harsh a word as discrimination might be too weak. However, this was happening in a time when tolerance was virtually unheard of in most places. When historians and scholars speak of religious freedom and tolerance, they are defining the terms relative to the situations and events from that time and before; the things that the people of the time could think of and learn from. ] 05:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
== Unsourced claims of second-class status ==


I placed the unreliable source and citation needed tags on the claims of second class status in this argument months ago and since there has been no effort to add sources I am now leaning towards deletion. The only source provided is a link to a much less reputable wiki page, which is not a scholarly source. If you want to source what that page says you have to follow the sources from that page and link those. You cannot just cite an ideologically biased wiki page as definitive evidence on a historical topic. Those who wish to keep the references to supposed second-class status would do well to add a real source before it is deleted. ] (]) 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
MrScottM if this was just an historical concept your comments would be valid BUT that is not the case. There are currently armed groups enforceing this idea, and More who want to if they get the chance. So this concept needs to be compared current idea's of fairness and equality.] 10:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


:https://nyupress.org/9781479889457/the-sword-of-ambition/
:The concept of dhimma ''is'' discriminatory in its most basic sense. It creates a legal distinction between Muslims and others. Is it a violation of human rights? Whose human rights? and which instantiations of dhimma have violated them. The main problem I see is that many sources both Muslim and non-Muslim try to decomplexify the issue by conflating all instances of this system as either positive or negative in either an absolute or relative sense. This is of course problematic because in a '''relative''' sense dhimma has been preferable to other systems of the time while at other times it has been worse. Example: Ottoman Jews in the mid to late 1800s were discriminated against under the dhimma system. This was relatively good compared to the situations of pogroms in Eastern Europe this there began to be immigration of Jews to Ottoman land that had been oppressed under the European system (and those fleeing the pogroms were not necessarily Zionists). Relative to modern Western human rights standards Ottoman practice was a violation of human rights. Many instantiations of dhimma today are human rights violations. The problem is, the system is not homogenous and directed under a singular law... it varied immensely from place and time and what you get in the more popular readings on it is a highly politicized debate trying to represent the nature of Islam. This is to a great extent anthropology (or ethnography) and when you address these subjects it's necessary to not render judgment upon the actions. It's also important to line up power relations. Would an Arabian Hanbal jurist have called the Hindus dhimmi people? There is a good chance they wouldn't have. So, that ruling was accepted and implemented in Mughal lands because of the interaction of political necessity with religious ruling. Circumstances shape religion and we must take that into account. ] ] 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:Full of arguments why Jews and Christians need to be firmly kept in second class status.
:"The dimmis must not be permitted to call themselves by Muslim names, being addressed as 'Abu I-Hasan, 'Ab l-Husayn; 'Abu 'Ali,' 'Abu Tahir,' and the like. Likewise, we must bar them from using the honorific title of Shaykh, for the dignity of Islam and the pride of the faith flatly forbid that they should do this. They must be compelled to wear their distinguishing belts and clasp them about their waists in plain view. Let the rider take care not to hide his distinguishing belt by sitting on it. They must not be permitted to ride any kind of horse or mule. Let them not pass by the tombs of Muslims by day or by night. They must not be permitted caparisoned mounts. Let the caskets of their dead-open, not closed -be pulled along the ground by ropes of palm fiber. They must be forbidden to carry their caskets on their shoulders. Let them instead be dragged through the dust." The last part of the document reads: "Let them be forbidden to make their tombs white." ] (]) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


== ] has an ]==
==Totally disputed?==
I've noticed that EVERY artical with any critism of islam or islamic groups has a Totally Disputed tag at the top. This is Censorship through the contamination of perfectly factual information. Lots of articals are disputed on there talk pages but don't have this tag. I'm deleteing it, lets have a list of your supposed factual inaccuacies.] 11:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 16:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
: It is nice to first delete the tag and then looking for a list. --- ] 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


== The first paragraph of this section is misleading. ==
:That's right Hypnosadist. Because many editors think reliance on the regular scholarly sources is itself not neutral. We're being asked to compromise between NPOV/RS and IPOV/URS.] 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


By way of rebuttal, consider this paragraph from a 14 century Muslim bureaucrat in Egypt (https://nyupress.org/9781479889457/the-sword-of-ambition/ )
:: That is because these pages are overly reliant on the work of pundits, not scholars.--] 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


''"The dimmis must not be permitted to call themselves by Muslim names, being addressed as 'Abu I-Hasan, 'Abu 'Ali,' 'Abu Tahir,' and the like. Likewise, we must bar them from using the honorific title of Shaykh, for the dignity of Islam and the pride of the faith flatly forbid that they should do this. They must be compelled to wear their distinguishing belts and clasp them about their waists in plain view. Let the rider take care not to hide his distinguishing belt by sitting on it. They must not be permitted to ride any kind of horse or mule. Let them not pass by the tombs of 'Muslims by day or by night. They must not be permitted caparisoned mounts. Let the caskets of their dead-open, not closed -be pulled along the ground by ropes of palm fiber.They must be forbidden to carry their caskets on their shoulders. Let them instead be dragged through the dust." The last part of the document reads:'Let them be forbidden to make their tombs white.'
Faisal the list should already be pressent if there were actualy specific disputed facts, i've been through several discussions on specific issue's and the tag is no where mentioned. What in your opinion SPECIFICALLY needs to be addressed to make this FACTUAL.] 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 19:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
::If an editor places a disputed tag on an article, that editor should explain, in detail, what is not factual about an article and provide credible sources to back up what they say. If they do not do that, then I would support removing the disputed tag.--] 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Some evidences that the article is still disputed ==

Point #1.
:The article reads: "The conditions of the dhimma resulted in a gradual acceptance of Islam by most Middle Eastern Christians and Zoroastrians living under the Muslim rule, as well as in the Arabization of Christians."

:Claim: *Not all POV's are included* + *The sentence is written in a way that its POVness makes the sentence factually incorrect*

:Reason: the conditions of the dhimma was "a" reason for the conversion of many but not the only reason as the sentence suggest (+ forced conversions). For the case of Jewish people only, The Jewish Encyclopdia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1654&letter=A#4894 ) says:

:There were also many enlightened conversions to Islam among the Jews in the twelfth century. Grätz considers it as “''partly owing as to the degeneracy that had taken hold of Eastern Judaism, manifesting itself in the most superstitious practices, and partly moved by the wonderful success of the Arabs in becoming a world-power''”. There were also many forced conversion to Islam due to “the rise of the Almohades (Unitarians), in 1142, and the great wave of religious reform, mixed with religious fanaticism”

Point #2.
:The article reads: "Dhimmis were allowed to retain their religion and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and accepting Muslim supremacy, which involved various restrictions and legal disabilities placed on them, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims, and the requirement to wear distinctive clothing."

:Claim: *Not all POV's are included*
:The tribute is ]. View of some Islamic scholars on jizya:

:The Shia jurist, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi states in ''Tafsir Nemooneh'' that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and Dhimmi's lives and properties on their behalf <ref> Tafsir Nemooneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, on verse 9:29</ref>

:"Ayatollah Khumeyni states that dhimmis "have to pay the jizya tax in exchange for the protection they receive and in lieu of the taxes, such as zakat, that only Muslims pay."

:Regardless of the tone of the sentence (which some may think is true but is not what all scholars think), there is no mention of the tax zakat that only Muslims pay. Long ago, I tried to include this but I was stopped.

Point #3.
:The article reads: "Although ''Muslim authorities sometimes raised'' the question whether dhimmis should be forced to accept Islam, '''the prevailing opinion''' was that dhimmis had to be allowed to preserve their religion largely because they were an economic boon to the Muslim state."

:It also says: "Dhimmis were allowed to retain their religion."
:Claim: Contradiction.

:Comment:
:The jewish Encyclopedia says that "The rise of the Almohades (AlmuwaḦḦidin = Unitarians) in northern Africa and the great wave of religious reform, mixed with religious fanaticism, which swept over Fez and into southern Spain, left them in most cases no choice but the adoption of Islam or death."

Point #4.
:"Dhimmis were allowed to retain their religion and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and accepting Muslim supremacy, ''which involved various restrictions and legal disabilities placed on them, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims, and the requirement to wear distinctive clothing.''"

:Claim: Factually incorrect; reason: not true in all the times --> over generalization.

:Evidence:
:Jewish Encyclopedia says:

:"Dhimmis were little disturbed during the rule of Ommiads (with the exception of Omar II) since "it was not in keeping with the worldly policy of those rulers to favor the tendencies of fanatical zealots."<ref> </ref> Jewish encyclopedia states that "Intolerance of infidels and a limitation of their freedom were first made a part of the law during the rule of the Abbassids, who, to bring about the ruin of their predecessors, had supported theocratic views and granted great influence to the representatives of intolerant creeds. Under them also the law was introduced compelling Jews to be distinguished by their clothing. At a later period such distinguishing marks became frequent in the Mohammedan kingdoms." <ref> </ref>

Point #5.
:Jewish Encyclopedia says: "Dhimmis were little disturbed during the rule of Ommiads (with the exception of Omar II) since "it was not in keeping with the worldly policy of those rulers to favor the tendencies of fanatical zealots."

<strike> :Sir Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early ], in his "Call to Islam" has argued:

<strike>::This tax (jizya) was not imposed on the ]s, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that &#8216;the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.</strike>

Welldiorant says:"The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the '''Umayyad rule''' which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays. They were free to practice their rituals. They maintained their churches and synagogues and the only obligation was that they should wear a special color and pay tax for every person pro rata his income. This sum ranged between two and four dinars. This tax was exclusively levied on non-Muslims who can go to war. However priests, women, children, slaves, elderly men, the disabled, the blind and the destitute were exempted from the tax. Dhimmis were exempted from military service in return. They were also exempted from zakat which is 2.5% of the annual income and the government was bound to protect them." '''Note: This quote is only and only supposed to get the back of the quote from JE (and could be striked if you would like). If you would like to reply to this comment, please start with addressing the JE quote. Thanks. '''

'''I made a mistake here. I just wanted to mention Dhimmi's condition during the Umayyad rule only with the purpose of getting back of the quote from JE. I take the other quote back. '''
:Question: Why this sort of information is censored?

-

And there is much more to say... --] 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:So there is, and I've not the time to deal with it all immediately, as you might like. For now, I might can say that the contemporary Islamic jurists do not constitute authorities on the history of Dhimma or Jizya. They are however sources for their own opinions - if the jurist is notable, so is the opinion.

:The mistake is to think that this somehow mitigates, contradicts or must be set against scholars of the history of Dhimma. We might consider a new section, contemporary justifications for Dhimma. Just one idea. Feedback?] 07:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the mistake is to think that the contemporary Islamic jurists are doing nothing but "justifying" the Dhimma. Some may do to some extent but not with the intensity to call them all "justification" --] 07:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:My main point is that there's no contradiction between, Dhimma was like this, and, this scholar says this now. Anyhow, the two quotes you've given sound like justifications to me.] 07:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Oh, yes, they are some sort of justification to some extent. Simply because these scholars are raised in the modern era, but not because they are trying to "justify" (in the sense people use the term) dhimma. They are simply intensifying part of a truth. And believe me or not, right now, Dhimmi's in Iran have *important* privileges that Muslims don't have (they can drink alcoholic drinks, their women don't have to cover their hairs in their parties,...). In any case, wikipedia can simply report everything. "X says A", "Y says B",... It is better than "A is so". (AND ALSO the famous expression "It is believed A is so"!!!) --] 08:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::Jewish Encyclopedia and Thomas Arnold were already discussed above: the former is 100 years old, the latter's writings are perhaps 200 years old. These sources are not citable anymore; to prove it otehrwise, you have to show that contemporary scholars still rely on them. The rhetorics of Shi'a clerics is just that: rhetorics; the existing description of ''jizya'' as "tribute" is NPOV, factually correct, and supported by classical jurists, like Mawardi. The claim that something is factually incorrect is just a personal opinion not supported by reliable sources. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia is 100 years old but infact closer to the real incidents. Jewish Encyclopedia is a scholarly work. Let's ask for a couple of admins to give their opinions on this issue. My POV is that even if Jewish Encyclopedia contradicts another more recent work on a particular matter, we should write: "Jewish Encyclopedia(1911) says A but scholar X (2006) says B. Your POV is that Jewish Encyclopedia is outdated and is not citable anymore unless "I prove it" by "showing that contemporary scholars still rely on them". The contemporary scholars, I guess, should rely on the sources Jewish Encyclopedia has used, not on the Jewish Encyclopedia itself. Anyway, Let's ask for a couple of admins to give their opinions on this issue. I will invite a few of them, you please go ahead and invite a few as well. Thanks --] 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:"] believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but contemporary scholars believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun." Is that your suggestion for ]? Please read ]; we do not include opinions that are no longer held by contemporary scholars unless we write an article on the history of science. I am astonished at this confidence that one can somehow substitute research of multiple contemporary scholarly sources with anything that comes handy on the Internet. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, first of all, both ] and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong. Neither moves around the other one. Secondly, I don't agree with your wholesale rejection of "Jewish Encyclopedia" arguing it is outdated. Thirdly, the contemporary physicist do have new sources, unavailable to ], my question is that have contemporary historians invented a machine of time that helps them go back in the history? No, at best, they may find new archeological evidences, or ancient books. Now, if we were talking about an ancient mystery, I would have accepted your argument, but this is not the case with Dhimmi. Fourthly, we should not compare Historians with Physicist just because they are both called scholars. If I consider Physicist scientists, I call philosophers and historians as pseudo-scientist (according to my own definitions of course). People get their trust for academics from real scientists, and then generalize their trust to all who teach at university, expecting them to tell them “the truth” (not forgetting that physicist are also telling us night fables). Fifthly, most of what I said is irrelevant and I don’t know why I said them. My main request is to ask several admins to give their opinion. --] 08:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, Aminz, your post is very authoritative, as it's a lot closer to your area of expertise. There are several editors around these pages with backgrounds in something other than the humanities who cannot or are unwilling to apply this level of objectivity to matters related to the historical practice of religion. Not that I believe you in particular incapable or unwilling in this regard, but it's an important point that, where history is concerned, though the methodology differs, the intent is to approach it with the same standard of objectivity with which one might approach astrophysics.] 09:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Timothy, I am actually no authority. I am simply doing math. But my post shows part of the truth (as your post is showing) and these are not my own ideas. I can back up my ideas using philosophical sources. Even when we focus on physics (which is supposedly at the center), we have Einstein who says: "as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Also, the way we study history is itself criticized by scholars (e.g. that we tend to view the history in a progressive manner (as things get better and better - we naturally think we are living in a better place as 200 years ago people were living and we use our biases when we study history). Again, as I said, my comment were mostly irrelevant to the discussion here, sorry!--] 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Aminz, I don't think this discussion irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the notion upon which several editors have become fixated, that this article along with several others is intended as or amounts to "propaganda against Islam" - it'd be as if the Copernican hypothesis were denounced as propaganda against the Earth.] 09:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Your above post, Aminz, boils down to the assertion of your view of the study of history as a propaganda tool. You are free to hold whatever views you find necessary, but Misplaced Pages is a wrong place to push this sort of denigration of the work of historians. You have made another wild claim that more recent scholarship of history is always inferior to older scholarship; this claim is so nonsensical that I don't think it requires counterarguments. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::My attribution of authority, Pecher, responded to Aminz' statement, "well, first of all, both ] and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong. Neither moves around the other one," which reflects a sophisticated understanding of physics. Additionally, he is right that history is not scientific in the way that a physical scientist would expect, causing many phyicial scientists to dismiss it along with the other humanities (in some case, rightly) as arbitrary. You are correct that this reflects a lack of understanding on the part of physical scientists. The scientific method is only one component of a broader approach that is aptly described as "objectivity."] 09:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I down wish to bring about a dispute what is and what is not science. Thankfully, we have ], ], and ] on Misplaced Pages; these policies and guidelines allow us to sidestep lengthy phylosophical disputes. Showing off some command of the general theory of relativity on ] is just pointless grandstanding on part of Aminz; he is not the only one here who studied physics. On the other hand, he edits history-related articles, it would not hurt him to know that historians work with documents and that new documentary evidence is found all the time; this is not to mention that existing evidence may always be re-interpreted. It equally wouldn't hurt to know that there is no such thing as objectivity, just commonly held opinions; this is what ] is all about. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree that there is no such thing as objectivity, if one considers objectivity as a philosophical approach to knowledge, rather than as an infallible point of view - it is actually the latter which is un-objective. ] is really just a call to objectivity, which has been misunderstood here as assigning equal value to all points of view.] 09:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::We cannot possibly be objective in tretament of a subject, but we can strive to present the views as fairly as possible. If that's what you describe as a "call to objectivity", then I wholeheartedly agree with it. ] carefully avoids raising the issue of objectivity; all it says is that we must assign the greatest importance to the predominant view, while giving lesser importance to the view of a significant minority; assigning equal importance to all views is out of question. This is, however, one editor's approach to present a view of a contemporary Shi'a scholar as a counterweight to the view of everybody else; preferably, the view of the Shi'a scholar in question must be presented in the intro, in several paragraphs with lengthy direct quotes. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: And one editor's approach is simply removing the whole thing and then waiting for a month or so to let the person know about the reasons for the removal. Maybe that person could find more scholars saying the same thing if he knew why his edits were removed. --] 10:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I have requested several admins to comment on this issue. Thanks. --] 09:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Pecher, the policy as stated is merely making an end-run around the issues by anchoring policy to reliable sources, and rightfully so. But the underlying ''reason'' for this is that said reliable sources are based upon, more often than not, what passes for an objective - and secular - approach to knowledge. WP policy is effectively, what is accepted, or not, in Western academia is accepted, or not, here. As stated - and only as stated - it's value-free.] 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-> Please add your comments here:

* I've been contacted by ] to give my opinion to this debate that envolves the Jewish encyclopaedia (JE). I've never contributed to this article (Dhimmi) as i lack knowledge about the subject. I am also between relying on the JE and not to rely on. I've seen whole articles written -i'd say word by word from JE like ]. My suggestion to you guys is to contact ] or ]. I trust those two users/admins and i am sure they'll be very helpfull in this case. Cheers -- ''] 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>

* I am Copy/Pasting Tony Sidaway's opinion from his talk page: (] 10:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
: "We have entire articles based on the ], so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the ] where relevant. --] 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"
::We have entire articles based on original research so that's a perverse analogy. Give me an example of a featured article using ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's your answers from Hypnosadist:
# This sentance could probably be writen slightly better to show there were forced and "enlightened" conversions (talk about a POV name).
# 1)Ayatollah Khumeyni states nothing of the sort, its a notation to his speach writen later by ??? 2)We've been through this before Zakat is something Mulsims CHOOSE to do to be good muslims, Jizya is a tax dhimma are FORCED to pay to keep breathing.
# The constant tension between rulers who want to keep a ] in the form of dhimmi's (who pay more per-capita) and religious leaders who want to convert everyone is not well explained. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.
# This can be made acurrate by changing to "and the requirement under some rulers to wear distinctive clothing." giving the above JE quote as one of the sources. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.
# Sir Thomas Arnold directly contradicts the words of many islamic jurists in why they say the jizya is enforced. These include Ibn Kathir, the jurists and the reasons they state in legal opinion are vastly more notable than what a european historian THINKS THEY THINK!] 11:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
'''Aminz reply to Hypnosadist'''

Hypnosadist: 1 This sentance could probably be writen slightly better to show there were forced and "enlightened" conversions (talk about a POV name).

:: See the sentence first mentions the restrictions of Dhimmi's and then based on that tries to make an statement about the conversion of Dhimmis. Either the details for "enlightened" conversions must be also included in the intro, or the whole paragraph should be explained in more detail somewhere else. --] 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist: 2 1)Ayatollah Khumeyni states nothing of the sort, its a notation to his speach writen later by ??? 2)We've been through this before Zakat is something Mulsims CHOOSE to do to be good muslims, Jizya is a tax dhimma are FORCED to pay to keep breathing.

:: 1. Note that the website is the official website of "Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting".
:: 2. Yes, this appears in the footnote but aren't footnotes written by the scholars themselves? I believe they are "by default" and if one wants to oppose it, the burden of providing the proof is on his side.
:: 3. Even "assuming" it wasn't written by Khomeni, this appears in the official website of "Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting". Doesn't this imply its authenticity?

:: Regarding your point #2, yes, Zakat is a mandatory charity but Jizya is a tax payed as a sign of dhimmi's acceptance of Islamic government. This does not make the quotes wrong. From an economic perspective, the quotes are right. --] 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist: 3 The constant tension between rulers who want to keep a ] in the form of dhimmi's (who pay more per-capita) and religious leaders who want to convert everyone is not well explained. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.

:: That can be a good addition, but I can simply see a contradiction there. --] 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist: 4 This can be made acurrate by changing to "and the requirement under some rulers to wear distinctive clothing." giving the above JE quote as one of the sources. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.
:: This solves the factuality. But also, if under some rulers, Dhimmi's had a good condition, we should mention them as well in the intro. --] 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist: 5 Sir Thomas Arnold directly contradicts the words of many islamic jurists in why they say the jizya is enforced. These include Ibn Kathir, the jurists and the reasons they state in legal opinion are vastly more notable than what a european historian THINKS THEY THINK!] 11:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:: The Sir Thomas Arnold quote was replaced with another quote. But another point deserves to be made. The quote appears in http://www.islamonline.net which is a reliable source. This, together with two other quotes from the shia scholar shows that the view of modern scholars has changed from the view of scholars in the past. The article can simply report this instead of removing the current views because they contradicts some past views. --] 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


=== Some evidences that the article is still disputed II===
<!--shortening of thread for convenience-->
"''Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century''" keeps being quoted (Point #5). This is intentionally wrong. Arnold lived from 1795-1842 and focused on Roman history and the education policy of his era. What little he knew on Islam's history has been superseded long ago. I don't assume good faith as this has been pointed out repeatedly; it's indicative of the approach of endless, unabashed filibustering.

:Pecher:"''] believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but contemporary scholars believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun.''"
:Aminz: "''Well, first of all, both ] and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong.''"
For the record: the contemporary scholars are correct. For the argument's sake, Pecher just happened to refer to a popular, abrigded, and therefore imprecise version of ]. Again: unabashed filibustering, pars pro toto.

Aminz: "''Jewish Encyclopedia is 100 years old but infact closer to the real incidents''" ...inferring that the more recent the scholarly research, the more unreliable it gets. No comment on that. It's just one example of many showing Aminz unabashedly trying to impose his interpretation of historic reasearch, not caring about WP's standards on the issue.

Tony Sidaway: "''We have entire articles based on the ]''" Since when do articles relying on outdated information set standards? "''...so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the ] where relevant.''": contemporary scholars are to decide on any EJ assumption's relevance, not wikipedians. EJ's assesments contradicted by contemporary research are plainly ''not'' relevant. --] ] 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

: My comment has been taken out of context to imply a blanket endorsement for the Jewish Encyclopedia which I did not intend. I was simply addressing the suggestion, relayed to me by a third party, that an encyclopedia shouldn't be cited if it's "out of date". We do have many articles, including several featured articles, which are based on articles lifted straight from the 1911 Britannica. While the original text was used as a basis, the out-of-date portions were subsequently updated through the normal wiki process. See ] for an example of such an article that has reached featured status from such a start. ] is being used for introducing material from the Jewish Encyclopedia to Misplaced Pages. --] 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::I concur an didn't doubt it: there are proper wikipedic uses for the EJ indeed. However, Aminz' points 1,3 and 4 rely on it's improper use, as contemporary research contradicts Aminz' EJ based inferences. Thus pointing to what's obviously indisputable (cite and use EJ where relevant) diverts from the issue at hand: mounting a dispute on preposterous claims and citing EJ where it's ''not'' relevant but actually misleading. --] ] 13:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

: Well I won't say anything about the current dispute, but it doesn't seem quite right to reject something out of hand just because you can find modern sources that say otherwise. I suggest that you work together on writing about the apparent discrepancy, since the Jewish Encyclopedia presumably had scholars with access to first hand accounts of the Dhimmi. --] 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I see that you striked out the reference to Thomas Arnold, as that point didn't even hold the pretense of water. However, you didn't do that with his quote. On what authority?. On the one of islamonline's anonymous ?. Besides, ''who'' is point 5's Mr. Welldiorant, unknown to the rest of the world, if it wasn't for ''three'' on islamic websites lacking any academic repute (forums.understanding-islam.com / bismikaallahuma.org / ummah.com)? '''Why''' must we deal with argumentation of that quality? And why do admins accept it as basis for dispute tags? --] ] 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Aminz has requested that I comment here. The Jewish Encyclopedia is marginally acceptable if you can't find any other source, but it should not really be relied on if better sources are available. Graetz was good in his time, but 100 years have passed, and historiography is much more accurate and sophisticated now. When it comes to history, one should rely on more modern sources where possible, especially when the modern sources post-date the older ones by a century. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Jayjg. The story is that on Dhimmi article, Pecher thinks the article is both factual and neutral and wants to remove the disputed tags. However several arguments (at ]) has been made to show the article is not undisputed (using JE). Pecher believes JE is outdated and can not be cited in wikipedia. So, "all" those arguments simply go away. For example, JE states that there were "enlightened" conversions to Islam, Gacs gives a couple of reasons for that, fine, someone else may give other reasons but this at least shows that all conversions to Islam were not either forced or because of the situation of Dhimmi's in Muslim lands. Can you please somehow explain to me how this contradiction could be explained? --] 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:If all the arguments based on the Jewish Encyclopedia are gone, what contradiction is left to explain? ] <sup>]</sup> 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

:: No, I was explaining your argument for Jayjg. I think the article still needs more work to become "undisputed". --] 09:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

: As an outsider to this, I'm surprised that those disputing the article aren't addressing what appears to be the real issue: the extremely loaded language of the article. In its present form, the article seems to be a hack job on Islamic governance. For instance, "Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs." This seems somewhat anhistorical because it introduces modern concepts of jurisprudence, to whit the right of all subjects of a country to equal protection at law, into an ostensibly historical account. The unequal treatment at law has historically been applied by rulers to minorities, particularly for religious reasons. Thus the statement in its present form appears to have more of a polemical effect (to highlight the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states) than to inform the reader. Such undesired effects should probably be avoided, lest Misplaced Pages's article in Dhimmis come to closely resemble a political treatise against Islamic governance. --] 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::Tony you seem to misunderstand, Dhimmi is not a historical concept it is part of Sharia today. But i do not understand how an artical could be written about these laws which are dedigned to discriminate without it "highlight the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states".] 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Hypnosadist, but you said in tha above that modern scholars contradict traditional scholars! If Shariah is defined as what the Islamic scholars say, it will be more a historical concept. --] 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::: BTW, if Dhimmi is not a historical concept, then one can add the quote from ], a prominent contemporary Shia scholar, to the article. He states if "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should deal with dhimmis stricly in a good and decent manner. <ref> on verses 2:83-88, Allameh Tabatabaei </ref>--] 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, now that we have a section on dhimma on the modern world, you can probably re-introduce the Tabatabaei quote there as an example of what modern Islamic scholars think about dhimma laws. - ] 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Thanks. That's a good idea. --] 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
: The statement "Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs" is clearly intended to be a historical appraisal of the dhimmi status (use of the past tense). This is why I address its anhistorical nature. --] 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::Interesting idea, but original research. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I have made an observation that the wording of the part of the article that I have cited is anhistorical. Could you please explain your statement that this opinion by a reader is "original research". You've got me really puzzled there. --] 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::::That's easy: everything that you cannot attirbute to verifiable reliable sources is original research. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::If even ''observations'' (ie opinions) expressed by editors about whether an article is balanced or unbalanced could be discounted because they were original research, then obviously we wouldn't be able to get any editing done. No obviously you may disagree with my observation, but to discount it as "original research" would be quite absurd. --] 04:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've supported the creation of the modern dhimmi section,which should have quotes from modern scholars as well as the information on jizya being collected off the Copts in egypt and Hizbut al tariha wanting to impose "old school" dhimmi laws. Also what do the saudi fundamentalists say.(Also the ban on non-muslims at mecca? is that dhimmi law?).] 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


::: The ban on polytheists at Mecca comes from a qur'anic verse. Hypnosadist, I think you have made a good collection of negative points. What about positive points? But in any case, you have done your job; someone else (whom I think we should wait for to come) should do the rest. --] 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The continued page protection is simply unproductive. It's clear that the NPOV tag should remain for now since there are several who feel there are NPOV issues and are willing to make their case in detail and engage on the talk page. - ] 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

: I agree. I'll unprotect for now but if the squabbles about whether the tag should remain continue I'll call to have it protected again. --] 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::It's obvious that the neutrality of this article is currently disputed, but is the ''factual accuracy'' also disputed? Just asking.] 05:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::: If I were to get involved in editing this article, I'd have some serious problems with the factual accuracy of the current version (as I indicated briefly above). But I'll leave that to the involved editors to decide. I'll not protect the article again but I'll watch it and may call for reprotection if the squabbling breaks out again. --] 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Timothy, sometimes neutrality and factual accuracy of an article are entangled together. For example, assume scholar X says "A is true"; scholar Y says "B is true". If one only writes scholar X says "A is true", the article becomes un-neutral. If one writes "A is true" the article will become both un-neutral and un-factual. --] 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Simple solution. Rename the article to "Dhimmi, according to Bat Ye'or and Bernard Lewis". The article is overburdened with the views of a handful of orientalists. In addition to that, as Tony points out, the article is effectively a series of polemic statements deriding the historic practices that occured under the Dhimmi system. If this article isn't a commentary (and POV-driven indictment) on history, then there's the burden to prove that Shariah as practiced today also supports the kinds of restrictions on dhimma that the article claims it to. Sections discussing history should make it clear that their content is historical, and should not contrast events and policies practiced in the 8th or 10th century with standards we accept today. Sections dealing with contemporary usage of dhimma in countries that run under Shariah should make it clear what aspects of the dhimmi system are still being practiced. ] 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

==Protected==
From my announcement on ] :
: ''There seemed to be an unproductive edit war over whether the article was disputed. From the talk page there do seem to be disputes, which one party is denying are significant disputes. Accordingly I've protected the article until the parties at least can agree on terms of reference.''

Sorry for not placing this notice here earlier.

Note please that the version on which this article is protected does not reflect any authoritative content pronouncement. On the face of it, however, there ''does'' seem to be some kind of dispute going on. --] 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I see no dispute here! --] 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:<strike> Cyde, Just wondering if there were no dispute, then why did I ask you to help resolving the dispute? --] 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) </strike> interesting expression!!! I just understood its meaning --] 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

==Meanwhile==
Looking at a , I see that someone clarified the meaning of "free" in the opener as "(e.g. non-])". Clearly he meant i.e. (''id est'') rather than e.g. (''exampli gratia''). Any objections if I correct this common error on the protected page? --] 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Quite right, Tony, as you ''usually'' are. No objection.] 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

::The minor correction "e.g." -> "i.e." has been made. --] 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

== Bringing Up To Standards ==

To avoid edit warring, let's work by consensus. I think it's agreed that statements need to be cited, and that it's not enough to cite, but to reflect the source accurately. Statements that are either uncited or incorrectly cited need to be corrected, or removed.

Starting from the top, there's this sentence: "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the 7th century until modern times . " Can we agree to substute 'until modern times' with something more appropriate? I suggest something like "from the 7th century, and is still practiced in countries such as...". Since only a handful of countries actually apply Shariah, and only few that practice it still hold the dhimma thing, this shouldnt be a problem. ] 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:We have the quote for the modern implimentation its http://memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SP110306 and refers to jizya being collected off the egyptian copts. Above we were just reaching concensus on this quote as no challenge to its factual accuracy was forthcoming. Second there is the whole implicit dhimmi is still part of sharia/what is sharia law argument. His excellency please read all the talk page. Also this wording was a previously accepted compromise this is a big can of worms your opening again.] 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:Now i find out that you were editing here when the concensus was reached for that wording just under a different name. I think it is a bit off for you to now want to re-open the discussion under a different name.] 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

::Exactly. The consensus was that this is the most we could say without reliable sources to inform the reader that dhimmi laws are no longer widely practiced. - ] 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Why should anything be said without reliable sources? And if keeping the can of worms closed means having this article effectively read like an indictment of shariah from the view of a handful of orientalists, opening that can of worms might not be a bad idea. If implicit dhimmi is still part of Shariah, does that include prohibiting Jews from wearing sandals as the article claims? I can't help but feel the article is deliberately vague on the distinctions between historical practices and the core rules regarding nonMuslims according to Shariah. The article merely highlights the most oppressive of actions and presumes that all the Muslim World embraces those policies. ] 19:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Because leaving a reader who just skims the first paragraph with the completely false impression that all Muslim countries today still enforce the laws of dhimma is a gross abdication of our responsibilities as encyclopedia contributors. - ] 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I agree merzbow i only wanted to get rid of the word abolished as that was factual incorrect.] 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think the edit to the intro is good and less all encompasing.] 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

== Alleged misrepresentation of a source ==

In the first paragraph of the article we read:

"Living in areas conquered by Muslims, these people were reduced to the status of ]<ref>Lewis (1984), p.62; Lewis (2002), p. 101</ref> and tributaries of a Muslim state.<ref>Al-Mawardi (2000), p. 158</ref>"

While in the source we read (I am exactly quoting most of the page 62 of Lewis 1984):


"In most respects the position of non-Muslims under traditional Islamic rule was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in the medieval Europe, not to speak of some events in modern Europe or, for that matter, the modern Middle East. But their status was one of legal and social inferiority or, as we would say nowadays, of second-class citizenship. ''At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society.'' But the phrase deserves a closer look. Second-class citizenship, though second-class, is a kind of citizenship. It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all. It is certainly preferable to the kind of situation that prevails in many states at the present time, where the minorities, and for that matter even the majority, enjoy no real civil or human rights in spote of all the resplendent principles enshrined in the constitutions, but utterly without effect. A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.

''Under Muslim rule such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews.'' It ceased to be accepted when the rising power of the Christendom on the one hand and the radical ideas of the French revolution on the other caused a wave of discontent among the Christian subjects of the Muslim states, an unwillingness to submit to the humiliations or even to threat or possibility of humiliation, which existed in the old older….."

So, the source mentions the definition and negative connotations of the word "second-class" in our language but feels it necessary to make it clear that those negative connotations were not there before the time of French revolution. The alleged accusation is that the article ''picks the sentence "second-class" out of its context'' and the details and uses it consciously, ''hiding the fact that our moral standards of citizenship has changed over time which is mentioned in details by the source ''. This at best can be construed as original research and at worst dishonesty. --] 08:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:This is a completely specious accusation. The point that Bernard Lewis is making there is that the concept of citizenship is very recent, so it's not technically correct to say that dhimmis were second-class ''citizens'', but rather ''subjects''. On the page cited and elsewhere, Lewis makes it very clear that dhimmis held indeed a position inferior to Muslims; this is an abovious point that no one ever disputed. See also a reference to another book ''Arabs in History'', where Lewis refers to dhimmis as "second-class citizens" without any qualifications. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Pecher, if this interpretation of the source is your doing, this would make the second time you've been accused of maliciously misquoting a source to back your POV. What the text says is obvious: That nonmuslims were treated as second-class citizens, which was by medieval standards a great deal better than how Christian nations treated non-Christians. It goes on the say that while the notion of second-class citizenry might be seen negatively today, back then such a status would be appreciated. Good work, Aminz. ] 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:: True, citizenship is a modern concept (point: second class subject directs to second class citizen) and I am with you that "it is not technically correct to say that dhimmis were second-class citizens, but rather subjects". I *think* people nowadays are classified according to their nationality but used to be classified according to their religion. I am also with you that "On the page cited and elsewhere, Lewis makes it very clear that dhimmis held indeed a position inferior to Muslims; this is an obvious point that no one ever disputed." Lewis believes Non-Believers, women and slaves didn't have the same right as "Muslim male believers" had (here we are using the modern definition of rights and equality). But I can not honestly see how this was relevant to my comment. The concept of human rights and strict equality of all is also a modern concept. According to the medieval moral standards, Dhimmi's were not discontent of their situation. In their standards, "such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews." They become discontent only after their standards changed. Lewis somewhere else says that Muslims were not criticized at that time for their misbehavior; the criticisms were centered on the validity of their religious claims.
:: Noting that our readers are modern readers, Lewis needs to explain this historical change of the standards. The article does not. Lewis is very careful in using the term "second class citizen" (the link article directs to) since "At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society."
:: My suggestion is that this sentence is better to be revised. It should be pointed out that in medieval times, Dhimmis were not only discontent but for example Jews were gratitude. But yet, later after French revolution when their standards changed, they became discontent. --] 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::: '' "But their status was one of legal and social inferiority or, as we would say nowadays, of second-class citizenship." '' If you quoted the text accurately, what Bernard Lewis is in fact saying is that nonMuslims were given 'second class citizenship', which isn't such a bad deal since other Christian nations didn't recognize members of other faiths at all. He mentions that 'second class citizen' is considered a a form of discrimination today with the intention of reminding readers that what we consider norms today were not norms back then. That Jews of the time acknowleged this, and accordingly showed 'gratitude'. ] 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't think that this is misreprisenting the source, as Lewis's artical goes on to contextualise the concept of "second class citizen" not to change its meaning. He points out that this rank is better having no citizenship (non-person) or even worse being an "threat to the state" and being hunted down (as catholics were in england under Elizabeth the first). I think this means second class citizen accurately discribes the status of Dhimmi both citizens and having less rights that a muslim.] 11:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Exactly, the source was cited accurately. Aminz's objections seem to stem from the fact that the article does not dwell at length about the concept of citizenship in general and second-class citizenship in particular. This is, however, a wrong article for such arguments. Here, it is sufficient to observe that dhimmis were second-class subjects, which is the opinion of most scholars. The only disagreeing scholar that I know of is S.D. Goitein according to whom dhimmis were not subjects/citizens, but rather aliens with a certain legal relationship to the Muslim state. This is hardly an improvement over second-class citizenship. Lewis' statements about the attitudes of Jews and Christians towards their status are polemical over-generalizations with which hardly every scholar would agree. We cannot verify whether all Jews always felt gratitude for being dhimmis, can we? The article at the moment does a good job by steering away from polemics and sticking to describing the Islamic legal concept of dhimmi and how that concept was applied in practice; there is no need in turning the article into a polemical battleground. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: The content of the article must faithfully reproduce the works used to support it as citations. I don't know for sure if you introduced that content; if you did, you must convey what Bernard Lewis was conveying. The content as presented in the article suggests the editor was fishing for information within the book that would support a certain POV, while ignoring the author's own statements that would have made the content more neutral. Bernard Lewis considered Dhimmis as second class citizens, but went at lengths to point out that this was something to be appreciated when you compare the lands under Muslim rules to other empires (notably Christian) that they were competing against. This isn't polemics, it's context explained by a scholar who's work was <s>exploited</s> used. An editor who had an ounce of good faith would have conveyed that point in its totality. ] 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::The quote is accurrate it must stay please don't delete, H.E you have yet to produce a reason that this is inaccurate. The argument that this was comparitivly good treatment has no bearing on the quote and is explained by lewis himself in the reference. It is Factually accurate to say dhimmi are second class citizens for the reasons i say above.] 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Inaccuracy had nothing to do with it. The verse itself is quoted, it hardly needs a preceding expanation which effectly uses the same language to convey the same message. That's called 'redundancy'. Aside from that, I didn't delete anything, I merely added. ] 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::: The extended Lewis quote was moved not deleted.] 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Misplaced Pages is not a random collection of quotes, even those that some editor like; there is Wikiquote established exactly for that purpose. Encyclopedia articles must summarize the content of sources, not quote dozens oif paragraphs from them. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Abuse of Sources ==
] distinguishes between a fact, as defined in Misplaced Pages, and an opinion. I've seen on two entirely different pages, allegations being made against a particular user for misquoting a sources and deliberately misinterpreting them. The deliberate misuse of Stillman has been noted, and now the usage of Bernard Lewis' work is being questioned. This needs to be looked into. If a fact conveyed by an author is not contradicted in other publications, that there is no dispute (read ]), then it can be treated as a fact. Anything else must be attributed to its respective author, and not presented as if it were indisputable fact acknowleged by the article. Apparently a few users here have also totally lost sight of what "NPOV" is. In light of these frequent allegations of misuse of sourced by the same individual, I recommend other evaluate all sources and see that what the source states is faithfully produced in the article content. ] 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to some of these books. Somebody needs to look up the content here that's supported by Tritton's work, as well as Stillman's and Lewis'. I think there's alot more 'misrepresentation' to be found. The second paragraph mentions Jews having to wear certain clothing and suffering certain restrictions, presenting that fact as a characteristic standard of the Dhimmi State. Another sentence mentions Dhimmis being under the thread of mob attacks. What exactly do the sources say? ] 16:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:So disagree that dhimmi's are second class citizens, simple find a reputable source that says dhimmis had identical rights then it can be changed to Lewis said that.] 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I'm not disagreeing with the 'second class citizen' phrase, i'm simply saying the context needs to be included as the source explains it. But on other matters, sources need to be examined, since a bit of deceptively selective quoting is seems to be going on here (see ] talk page for another instance). ] 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::: The article is not about how Christians in France or Spain treated Jews. The article is about how Muslims treated Christians and Jews. It is absolutely inappropriate to qualify everything in this article with statements like "Sure, they had it bad in Muslim countries, but the Jews had it worse under Queen Isabella of Spain!" If you want to create an article about the situation of minorities in medieval Europe, then do so. But that information does not belong here. - ] 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


:::::The quote is not judging whether Muslims are tolerant - 'second-class citizens' or 'second-class subjects' is a factual term for those who have fewer legal rights than others. It is a statement of fact that dhimmis had fewer legal rights. - ] 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Mentioning "'second-class citizens' or 'second-class subjects' maybe factual" but it is unfaithful to the source which goes on to make our understanding clear. Please read my quote from page 6x above once again please. Thanks --] 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Merzbow is absolutely right. The article must stick to the subject, which happens to be the Islamic legal concept fo dhimmi and its application in practice (I think I'm getting tired of repeating this point). Discussions on entirely judgmental matters, like whether it was better to be a dhimmi under the Abbasids or a Jew in the 15-century France or that we should not judge the past with contemporary values do not belong here. If someone is eager to record somebody else's value judgment, then there are all sorts of "criticism" articles for that. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Pecher, have you read the Lewis 1984? --] 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::What's the point of this question? Comment on content, not on editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Give me time to back up myself from Lewis 1984. I need time. Lewis has written a book on "Jews of Islam" (so it is supposed to be about the Jews of Islam) but frequently compares them with others. He makes the necessity of "comparison" clear. Give me time to back up myself (I may need to run now, but will back at night). Just for now, Merzbow& Pecher, please reserve your judgments on this matter. None of us are history scholars, I think.--] 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No, Lewis does not talk about the necessity of comparison. He points out (correctly, of course) that like must be compared with like and that it is wrong to compare one's theory with somebody else's practice or one's best examples with somebody else's worst examples. These are obvious points, but they are applicable only in one case: if you actually do the comparison, but we are not going to do the comparison here. Comparisons inevitably involve value judgments and comparing the treatment of dhimmis in Islam and religious minorities in Christendom accross time and space is such a vast subject that no one, as far as I know, ever dared touch it. After all, why compare with the Christendom only, why not include China, India, and the rest of the world, just for "context"? All the article does now is make a couple of obvious points on which everyone agrees: that the position of dhimmis was the worst in Morocco, Yemen, and Persia and that the times of decline brought about hardening of attitudes towards dhimmis. It is highly unlikely that the article will make even a step further from this. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lewis states:

Some background of development of our standards from page 1:

For Christians and Muslims alike, tolerance is a new virtue, intolerance a new crime. For the greater part of the history of both communities, tolerance was not valued nor was intolerance condemned. Until comparatively modern times, Christian Europe neither prized nor practiced tolerance itself, and was not greatly offended by its absence in others. The charge that was always brought against Islam was not that its doctrines were imposed by force- something seen as normal and natural- but that its doctrines were false.

Page 6:

What indeed do we mean by tolerance? In dealing with such subjects there is an inevitable tendency to assess and evaluate by comparison. If we speak of tolerance in Islam, we shall soon find ourselves measuring tolerance in Islam against tolerance in others societies- in Christendom, in India, in the Far East, or perhaps in the modern West. (Then Lewis goes on explaining what kind of comparison is valid…)


Page 7-8:

…, the term “tolerance” is still most commonly used to indicate acceptance by a dominant religion of the presence of others. Our present inquiry is limited to one question: How did Islam in power treat other religions? Or, to put it more precisely, how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects?

Whether this treatment deserves the name of tolerance depends, as already noted, on the definition of terms. If by tolerance we mean the absence of discrimination, there is one answer; if the absence of persecution, quite another. Discrimination was always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice. Persecution, to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical...

* So, as we see from page 7, Merzbow, tolerance is related to "second-class citizenship".
* Page 6, Pecher and Merzbow, talks about what we mean by tolerance and how we define it.
* Page 1, background on the development of the concept of tolerance. --] 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:The question boils down to whether it is fair to quote Lewis' use of the term 'second-class' in relative isolation from his succeeding sentences, given the present-day meaning around 'second-class'. I would be willing to compromise and say that we could add a clause to the end of that sentence in the intro that says something like "but were in principle guaranteed certain rights under Islamic law." - ] 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Merzbow, I believe historical context should be added there (if the term second class appears there; the context should be added as well). We should inform the reader to adjust his standards at the very beginning of this article (as lewis does in his book). We need to quote how Lewis views this issue and not how some of us view this. The Dhimmi's themselves were not discontent with their status. Jews were indeed gratitude. BTW, my problem is not only with the first paragraph, but with some other quotes from Lewis as well. --] 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I moved the extended lewis quote to the status of dhimmi section as that is the place it should be and i think its a good idea to keep it in there as it adds good info. I do not want to get into a how nice was dhimmi "CHAT" now all i'll say is my usual comment that dhimmi is NOT an historical concept as it is still an active part of Fatwa's.] 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: That's a valid point. Alot of this article is confusing, particularly the intro. Readers unfamiliar with the topic will wonder whether what's being discussed here is a historical even/policy, or current issue. In truth, it's a bit of both. I think it's a mistake to assume that a shariah system implemented today would host the same practices regarding Dhimmis as was practiced in 840AD. Of course, some groups probably DO intend on implementing such archaic policies, and those cases should be documented as well. I think this article needs a bit of a rewrite differentiating between historic practices and current views on the dhimma. ] 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: If you are able to find reliable sources that actually discuss the policies or the proposed policies of modern-day Muslim countries as they relate to dhimma law, then let us know. I can't find any. - ] 20:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You're wrong that dhimmis were 'not discontent' with their status in general; the Lewis quote clearly says that Christians accepted it with 'resignation'. To imply that any group of people enjoy being legally inferior to any other group is no more than justification for oppression. Medieval Christians may have often been worse oppressors of minorities than Muslims, but it doesn't make oppression justified. The fact that the Christians fought against the Muslim armies who conquered them and made them dhimmis is proof enough that they did not submit willingly. - ] 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: * Merzbow, did I do a bad job in presenting the Lewis quotes for you? Lewis says: "Until comparatively modern times, Christian Europe neither prized nor practiced tolerance itself, and was ''not greatly offended by its absence in others''." - "The charge that was always brought against Islam was not that its doctrines were imposed by force- something seen as normal and natural- but that its doctrines were false." - "Under Muslim rule such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews. It ceased to be accepted when the rising power of the Christendom on the one hand and the radical ideas of the French revolution on the other ''caused a wave of discontent among'' the Christian subjects of the Muslim states"
:::: * Merzbow, they saw it as something normal & natural & according to lewis indeed necessary. --] 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: I think the overall point that needs to be considered is that if things were reversed and Christians ruled over Muslims, the Muslims would probably be burnt to death as heretics. That's Lewis' point. At the time, Muslims did give the dhimma recognition and allowed them to practice their religion.It gave them the right to own property, and demanded that Muslims respect that property. In the Christian ruled lands, Muslims were simply put to death. Much of this article focuses on Muslim treatment of Jews, probably with the intent to demonstrate Muslims are categorically anti-semitic. It's useful to note that many, many centuries later, countries like England and France banished Jews altogether. Germany, an overwhelmingly Christian country, did considerably worse than just tax the Jews. ] 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::: There is no anti-semitics against the Jewish people in Islam (according to a definition), "unlike Christianity": Lewis says in page 85: "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctorine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history. " --] 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::These are all completely pointless exercises in value judgments. This is an encyclopedia article, and as such it must be free from value judgments whatsoever. Discussions as to whether ''dhimma'' was tolerant or intolerant, and if tolerant than by the standards of whom, completely miss the point. I understand the urge of some editors here to sweeten the pill by adding that everything must be judged within its historical context or that the concept of second-class citizenship is a relatively new one, but all of that is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. Islamic law and the practice of its application: these are the only things that matter here. Regarding "second-class subjects", let's summarize the discussion briefly. Were dhimmis of the second class? Yes, their status was inferior to those of Muslims. Were they subjects? You bet it. Nothing left to debate thus. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: No, Pecher, we should explain the context in which things happen. We can not look at the concept only from the modern eyes. Lewis himself describes it as what polematics do. He explains what kinds of comparison are allowed. Since our readers are modern people, if we don't mention anything, they'll look at things from a modern point of view. --] 00:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


::::::: You're being disengenuous, as always. The article is littered by commentary taken from individuals who've dedicated their lives to pushing their polemic agenda. Daniel Pipes isn't a matter-of-fact historian who merely documents history. He is an Islamophobe devoted to disenfranchising Muslims in the the West. Bat Ye'or too has devoted her life to her anti-Muslim and anti-Muslim stance. And yet these devout advocates of the anti-Muslim movement get disproportionate representation in these articles. Your deliberate misrepresention of sources that didn't go all the way in pushing your POV is being discussed on two different talk pages. You're not one to talk on 'value judgements'. ] 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: Aminz, you are just not reading the quote correctly. Do you understand what "accepted with resignation" means? Here is the dictionary definition of resignation: "Unresisting acceptance of something as inescapable; submission". Their dhimmi status was inescapable because the only alternative was death. They chose to live in submission instead of being killed outright. And the Christian dhimmis revolted in many lands toward the end of the Ottoman empire because the weakness of the Ottomans allowed them to do so with a decent chance of succeeding. The French Revolution did not invent the concept of freeing oneself from one's oppressors. - ] 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Merzbow, yes, it means "submission" but then so what? For example, when I want to enter United States, only because of being Persian, I have to go through a discriminative process; I have to submit myself to it. Does it mean to me that US is intolerant? No! However, if they later legislate a law that requires everybody (US natives, and others) to be treated similarly, people at that time will say, poor Aminz, how intolerant they were treating him! All I am saying is that if something appears natural and normal to me, even though I may not like it, does not necessarily make me discontent. I am enjoying my rights here and I am happy. Lewis says Jews were happy. Lewis himself goes on explaining the context of matters frequently. What’s the reason for censuring the historical context? --] 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Because "historical context" is limitless. There is no reason to discuss China, India, Japan, Incas, or whatever to demonstrate that the treatment of dhimmis "was not that bad". Encyclopedia articles must stick to the topic in question and let the facts speak for themselves. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==Marriage section (again)==
"...the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave, and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "]" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.(Friedmann (2003), pp. 161&ndash;162)"

Who the hell is this Friedmann character who compares a Muslim marriage to slavery? Can someone verify if this is actually in the book? ] 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm sure you live within 5 miles of a library. - ] 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency & Merzbow, here is Watt says in an interview:

Question. What about the attitude of Muhammad (peace be upon him) towards women?

It is true that Islam is still, in many ways, a man’s religion. But I think I’ve found evidence in some of the early sources that seems to show that Muhammad made things better for women. It appears that in some parts of Arabia, notably in Mecca, a matrilineal system was in the process of being replaced by a patrilineal one at the time of Muhammad. Growing prosperity caused by a shifting of trade routes was accompanied by a growth in individualism. Men were amassing considerable personal wealth and wanted to be sure that this would be inherited by their own actual sons, and not simply by an extended family of their sisters’ sons. This led to a deterioration in the rights of women. At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons. Muhammad improved things quite a lot. By instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, he gave women certain basic safeguards. '''Set in such historical context the Prophet can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights.'''

A lot also depends on what sort of Muslim society you look at. Many Westerners today think that Islam holds women in the heaviest oppression. That may be so in some cases, but only because they look at certain parts of the Islamic world. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey have all had women heads of state. I therefore don’t think the perception of Westerners is entirely correct.

--] 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:Aminz, we're just going in circles here. Can you propose a specific textual change? I already proposed that we add an 'although' clause to the Lewis sentence that makes it clear that he also says that dhimmis had rights theoretically granted to them by Islamic law. - ] 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Sure, the introduction & some other parts needs to be re-written. Just adding a phrase or even a sentence will not make the article unbiased. I'll propose a specific textual change in a few days after reading more. --] 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Then, stop littering the talk page with pages of irrelevant quotes and comments. A reader who has been out of this talk for a day will find oneself completely lost due the heaps of meaningless comments that have piled up. You needn't reply to this, just stop doing what you're doing now. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Pecher, stop. Your own comments are meaningness, not mine. I am replying back to someone else, you don't have to read. You have no right to call my comments meaningless. --] 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== No direct accusations ==
H.E., I think it is not appropriate to choose the heading of your paragraph POV(Abuse of Sources -> "Alleged" abuse of "a source") As I said, every alleged misrepresentation of the source at best can be construed as original research and only at worst can be construed as dishonesty. Moreover, we only want the article to be changed. There are more things to be changed, I've noticed, not just first paragraph. For example, the context of the following lewis quote gives us a different impression than it does when taken and read taken out of its context:

"It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam began to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesman for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity"

I need to run now, and haven't read the previous talks here. I just noticed the heading you've chosen and thought it is not appropriate. Take care, --] 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:See above regarding this incessant talk page littering. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: If I am doing talk page littering, you are also better stop defending yourself of the obvious misrepresention of the sources. --] 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Stop defending myself from your misleading, dishonest, and baseless accusations? You ha ve failed to show a single instance where I have misrepresented a source. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Pecher, I am not happy with our progress. We never had any significant progress anywhere really. Not so sure, but if the situation wants to remain the same, we may want to report each other to the ArbCom. I believe I already have enough evidences from here and there. You should have some as well. But that's not the good way to go unless we feel it is necessary. --] 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::The ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::] is probably what you want, Aminz. They deal with article disputes but, it's not binding or anything. ] ] 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Poor structure and unbalanced ==

I would like to use an article on this subject to supplement my reading about Christian-Muslim-Jewish relationships in the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately, this article is more or less hopeless as history. Although there are a great many references they are nearly all drawn from just three authors. Not that these authors shouldn't be cited, but since they are from a similar viewpoint they should be balanced with other reliable sources. The article consistently fails to distinguish between what sharia law said should be the status of non-Muslims and what restrictions were actually applied in different places at different times.

Andrew Wheatcroft in Infidels: A History of the Conflict between Christendom and Islam, Viking Penguin 2003, says p76, talking about the breakdown of tolerance (convivencia) towards the end of the Reconquista:

"However, we should read the law codes and prohibitions less as a representation of what actually happened, and more as an effort to prevent the dangers of uncontrolled proximity. Islam never prohibited marriage between Muslim men and women of the other castes, while concubines or slaves were used sexually by men without regard to their faith. By law the children of Muslim men were supposed to follow the faith of their father. But the realities of human life, in the past as in the present, did not always correlate with the prescriptions of the law." ] 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:Concur w/ Judith. Absolutely! -- ''] 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>

:: "The article consistently fails to distinguish between what sharia law said should be the status of non-Muslims and what restrictions were actually applied in different places at different times." Lewis also agrees with this. If I remember correctly, he somewhere states that what was practiced was worst than what sharia law itself said. --] 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Lewis agrees with the comments about this article? I'm afraid he would need a time machine back in 1984 to do so. Actually, the article consistently distinguishes between the legal requirements and their practical implementations. All you need to find this out is actually read the article rather than skim the headings. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: No, If I remember correctly, Lewis agrees that "what was practiced was worst than what sharia law itself said"; I meant Lewis agrees with the the difference between "what sharia law says" and "what was practiced at different times". --] 08:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Page number? ] <sup>]</sup> 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Not sure where I saw this (or I may have mistaken) but here is something similar. Lewis wants to argue that ''if we want to evaluate tolerance according to the practice of Muslims or their doctorines, we get different results.'' (at the Page 6). That is the practice is not identical to the doctorines, even to the extent that our answer to the question "How tolerant Islam" may change as to how we define Islam (based on practices or doctorines). --] 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::This article is not about whether Islam was tolerant or intolerant. The question of tolerance is inherently subjective, and it's not up to an encyclopedia article to answer it. This article is about the Islamic concept of dhimmi/dhimma and it's practical implementation. It's high time you relented and stopped bringing up the issue of tolerance and quoting all these general statements that you love to throw on the talk page. Start talking about specific provisions of sharia and their practical implementations. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As my comments above clearly show, Lewis says: "Page 7-8:

…, the term “tolerance” is still most commonly used to indicate acceptance by a dominant religion of the presence of others. Our present inquiry is limited to one question: How did Islam in power treat other religions? Or, to put it more precisely, ''how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects?''

Isn't this an important question the article wants to answer??? That how were non-Muslims treated. It is not personal at all. --] 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, this is one aspect that this article should cover, but can you find the word "tolerance in ''how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects?'' The answer to this question is what I call "practice" of the application of the Islamic law, the other side being the theory, i.e. sharia itself. None of this has anything to do with "tolerance". ] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks to people for quick responses to my comments yesterday. OK, I’ll take an example of what I mean. Say I want to compare the possibility of Jews constructing and using synagogues in mediaeval Muslim Spain with mediaeval Christian Spain. Fair enough question to use the article for? It is one of the things that I am interested in. By a long chain of connection it relates to research I am trying to do on south east England. I go to the section Places of Worship.

First I find six sentences presented in a very factual way, with wikilinks to historical figures. All this is drawn from Bat Ye’or (ref. 41). The first sentence states very firmly what Islamic law says. It seems plausible, but what are Bat Ye’or’s sources? Here the article is dealing with the law and not how it was interpreted. Then BY moves on to a particular jurist. Someone has kindly put in a wiki link to him, but the article is little more than a stub from 1911 Britannica. The article on the jurist has a long bibliography, but the dhimmi article, following BY, does not give the reference to which of the books might be relevant. There is nothing to be learnt about the circumstances in which this jurist was writing. Was this a central part of his legal approach or just an aside? Was it stricter or less strict than what other jurists argued?

Then, still with the same reference to 2/3 pages in BY the article slides from what the law said to how it was enforced. Two sentences take us through three Abbasid caliphs and a Fatimid caliph, from 821 to 1021. All four have their own articles but there doesn’t seem to have been any attempt to cross-check between these. In the article on the first Abbasid there is mention of his intolerance of Jews and Christians – he also destroyed Shia shrines, apparently, which might be relevant. The second Abbasid’s article says nothing about attitudes to Christians and Jews. The third Abbasid is Harun Al-Rashid himself, and his article is detailed but has nothing on Jews and Christians. The Fatimid’s article sees his intolerance of other faiths as being “strange behaviour” linked to some kind of mental breakdown.
Having gone through this 200-year sweep the paragraph ends with a general statement about dhimmis managing to build churches and mosques anyhow. This final statement makes it seem that more is known than actually is and gives the distinct impression that the position was the same throughout the Muslim world and across centuries. Also, the paragraph shifts between the question of whether non-Muslims were allowed to build places of worship and instances of when synagogues and churches were destroyed.

The second paragraph deals with whether churches and synagogues could be rebuilt. Here the main reference is the Pact of Umar. Yet this very article refers to a consensus view of academic historians about the dubious provenance of that document. The statement that bribery was used is repeated with no source.

What can I deduce from this section about the situation in Spain? I’d say nothing. It seems probable that an Abbasid destroyed synagogues and churches in the Middle East, and that a Fatimid did the same 200 years later in Egypt. I’ve found no information to extend statements elsewhere in wikipedia about the Almoravids and Almohads being less tolerant than the previous rulers of Al-Andalus. That’s OK for me. I’m a professional researcher - way, way out of my field, but with a general skill in using sources critically. There is no way that we can assume that all wikipedia users have those skills. It took me over an hour to pick this section apart. Very few users can afford that time. So it’s no good to say “read the article”. It’s meant to be an encyclopaedia article. It’s meant to give the reader a quick overview that should, nevertheless, be accurate as far as possible. This article does not meet criteria for use of sources in historical articles and should be completely rewritten. I appreciate that a lot of work is already going into this, but there is still a considerable way to go.

And sorry for the length of this statement, but I needed this number of words to spell the point out. ] 10:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll split the answer into points:
*''Say I want to compare the possibility of Jews constructing and using synagogues in mediaeval Muslim Spain with mediaeval Christian Spain. Fair enough question to use the article for?'' No, you should hit the archives and do the documentary work there. Misplaced Pages is not meant to answer such extremely specific questions; it's an encyclopedia, after all. At the very least, you're at the wrong article, as this one deals with the general issues of the status of dhimmis; it does not and will not cover the treatment of Jews in Christendom.
*''The article on the jurist has a long bibliography, but the dhimmi article, following BY, does not give the reference to which of the books might be relevant. There is nothing to be learnt about the circumstances in which this jurist was writing. Was this a central part of his legal approach or just an aside? Was it stricter or less strict than what other jurists argued?'' Bat Ye'or illustrates with al-Nawawi what she calls a "unanimous opinion". Looks like you have problems with the article on Nawawi rather than with this one.
*''In the article on the first Abbasid there is mention of his intolerance of Jews and Christians – he also destroyed Shia shrines, apparently, which might be relevant. The second Abbasid’s article says nothing about attitudes to Christians and Jews. The third Abbasid is Harun Al-Rashid himself, and his article is detailed but has nothing on Jews and Christians. The Fatimid’s article sees his intolerance of other faiths as being “strange behaviour” linked to some kind of mental breakdown.'' Again, you're having problems with the other articles, not with this one.
*''Having gone through this 200-year sweep the paragraph ends with a general statement about dhimmis managing to build churches and mosques anyhow. This final statement makes it seem that more is known than actually is and gives the distinct impression that the position was the same throughout the Muslim world and across centuries.'' I encourage you to read ]. Your opinions are interesting, but here we only cite sources, not personal opinions of wikipedians.
*''The second paragraph deals with whether churches and synagogues could be rebuilt. Here the main reference is the Pact of Umar. Yet this very article refers to a consensus view of academic historians about the dubious provenance of that document.'' Nevertheless, Islamic scholars used it as a key source for their rulings (isn't it in the article already?). This is why the Pact of Umar is so important.
*''What can I deduce from this section about the situation in Spain? I’d say nothing.'' The question is: why should you be able to? This is a general article from which you want to deduce some very specific information. There is an article on ]; maybe you'll be lucky there. On the whole, however, you're at a wrong place. Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate source for doing original research; you will need to read dozens of books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of documents to do research on historical issues. Attempts to find an answer on Misplaced Pages indicate that you're most likely not serious about what you're doing.

] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya ==

H.E., where do these two rulings come from? The only reference you give is to something called "al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya". Can we have a publisher, date, and ISBN number of the English translation you used for this? And what is the "Sahih Abu Dawud"? There is a hadith collection "Sunan Abi Da'ud", but I searched the MSA collection for that saying and it's not there. Anyways, we can't quote hadith without commentary because it's not a reliable source, so please cite commentary for it or it will be removed. - ] 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There isn't much information aside from the book's name. I'll take it off from now. Sahih Abu Dawud is the same as Sunan Abi Dawud, but I checked my own collection of it and there seems to be a descreptancy between the essay I had and the actual volume. I'll re-add the section when I have better sources. There aren't alot of Muslim sources on the internet, and most Muslim run websites are poor. ] 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

: This appears to be a false citation from the Sunan Abu Dawud (the proper name: "Sahih" Abu Dawud is a mistake). ] 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: JE finds "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" in "Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133 --] 04:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::This is not from one of the six canonical hadith collections. Is this meant to be a hadith? Where does it come from?] 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: I don't know (I am shia) but according to Jewish Encyclopedia it is considered authentic by Muslims (see the below excerpt) --] 04:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. I haven't looked closely in the section you want to add, but this may be useful for you. It is quoted from Jewish Encyclopedia:

"The different tendencies in the codifications are shown in divergences in the decrees attributed to the prophet. While one reads, "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" ("Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133), people with fanatical views haveput into the mouth of the prophet such words as these: "Whoever shows a friendly face to a dhimmi is like one who deals me a blow in the side" (Ibn Ḥajar al-Haitami, "Fatawi Ḥadithiyyah," p. 118, Cairo, 1307). Or: "The angel Gabriel met the prophet on one occasion, whereupon the latter wished to take his hand. Gabriel, however, drew back, saying: 'Thou hast but just now touched the hand of a Jew.' The prophet was required to make his ablutions before he was allowed to take the angel's hand" (Dhahabi, "Mizan al-I'tidal," ii. 232, 275). ''These and similar sayings, however, were repudiated by the Mohammedan ḥadithcritics themselves as false and spurious.'' They betray the fanatical spirit of the circle in which they originated. Official Islam has even tried to turn away from Jews and Christians the point of whatever malicious maxims have been handed down from ancient times. An old saying in regard to infidels reads: "If ye meet them in the way, speak not to them and crowd them to the wall." When Suhail, who relates this saying of the prophet, was asked whether Jews and Christians were intended, he answered that this command referred to the heathen ("mushrikin"; "Musnad Aḥmad," ii. 262)."

--] 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:This is the third reminder to the same editor not to clutter the talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Please be more specific. --] 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::In case you didn't understand: this lengthy quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia has nothing to do on the talk page. If you want to inform H.E. about some material that you find useful, post it on his talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Pecher, there's no policy that says so. The quote isn't long enough to create such a havoc. It is indeed encyclopaedic enough to merit a few lines here instead of Aminz spamming users' talk pages. -- ''] 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>

:::::No, "spamming" means posting the same message across multiple user talk pages; posting one message on one user talk page cannot possibly be spamming. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] & ], reliable sources (?) ==

I just looked at the proportion of quotes in this article that comes from Bat Ye'or's. Bat Ye'or is NOT a historian, her academic training is not in Islam or in history. This article is utterly hopeless. What are the rules regarding the proportion of an article that should reflect a single POV? Can we just rename the article to "Dhimmi as seen by Islamophobes? ] 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

: I am trying to find the quote from Lewis in which he didn't approved scholarship of Bat Ye'or. I *think* I have seen it somewhere but I maybe wrong. --] 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This one is interesting: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005178.html

Let me try to find more. --] 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And this one is even more interesting:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/01/009895print.html

It says:

"Lewis has never yet acknowledged his behind-the-scenes belittling of Bat Ye'or and his own refusal to recognize that the history of dhimmitude -- a word he likes to mock as "dhimmi-tude," as if it is a preposterous, rather than useful, addition to the lexicon -- matters, is relevant, is center-stage. Instead we are supposed to believe the word itself is illegitimate. No one, apparently, can add to the wordhoard's store, even when the word turns out to be most apt and most useful. He has never engaged sympathetically with what is presented in The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam. He has never reviewed the book, never written about it. Instead he just goes around, ignoring or denigrating in various sly ways (that "dhimmi-tude") the work of Bat Ye'or."

--] 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if these sites are reliable or not, but here is another one:

Lewis has in the past been unwilling to endorse the scholarship of Bat Ye'or, describing it as "too polemical."

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1197

--] 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The polemical thing is mentioned by another scholar as well (taken from her article in wikipedia):

Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies writes of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. ''There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work.''" --] 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:We can all wish there existed better sources than there do, but so few people are actually looking at this subject in a critical manner. The mere act of critically examining such issues as the history of jihad, dhimmitude, the compilation of the Qur'an, etc. is essentially out of bounds for professors in any US university because of the politically correct environment out there. There is pretty much zero real scholarship in Islamic studies being done, as compared to studies of the history of Christianity, for example. I would love to see books on those subjects from guys like Esposito who are sympathetic to Islam and who might serve as a counterweight to what Yeor and Bostom are doing, but they refuse to do so; instead, they coast along putting out vapid popular history books. I also recall reading how the Saudis have poured tens of millions into funding professorships at major universities; this certainly doesn't help matters. - ] 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, Merzbow, the crux of the matter is that the subject of dhimmis is woefully underresearched compared to other historical subjects. We have Tritton and Fattal on the early history, Bernard Lewis (mostly on the Ottoman Empire), Goitein, Stillman, and Cohen (mostly on the Jewish history), and, of course, Bat Ye'or who writes about nothing but dhimmis. Good history of Christians under the Muslim rule, anyone? For the record: Saudis have poured 20 million dollars into the center of Islamic studies at the Georgetown University headed by Esposito himself. Talk about neutrality! ] <sup>]</sup> 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Now, Pecher explain why that Saudi quote, not sure if true, was relevant to the discussion here. --] 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If Jews can spend tens of millions of dollars defaming Islam and working to isolate Muslims in America through this mockery of scholarship, why cant Saudis (or other Muslims) do the same? The biggest lobby organization in Washington works to make Congress and the White House put Israel before the interests of the US. I think Muslims need to wake up to the effectiveness of the media. I see no more than 3 Muslims editing Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. Mostly the show's being run by people like Pecher and Timothy Usher who are basically forwarding the orientalist propaganda drivel spewed by the Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'ors. I've officially had it with this article. Aminz, you do some great work, but focus on the article, not the talk page. ] 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:H.E. I really don't know anything about how things are going on. And I am not sure if these discussion would help improving the article. One thing I have realized: Bernard Lewis is not a critic of Islam. He is an scholar. His books are nice to read. I don't know about Daniel Pipes or Bat Ye'or. I can say however that Ali Sina is not a reliable source. Unfortunately, the ] article doesn't explain well the academic studies of Bat Ye'or. I would like to see where she has got her degree and on what. I need a justification of why we can quote Bat Ye'or here. What makes her better than ]? Lewis seems to dismiss Bat Ye'or. Why is she a reliable source? --] 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Nothing will help improve these articles. Actually as scholars go, I respect Bernard Lewis above most. He's still far from perfect, but nobody is perfect anyway. Most of Edward Said's criticisms of Lewis are correct though, in my opnion. Critical analysis of history is something foreign to the Arabs, so nothing from them is much good. Bat Ye'or is a witch from some family that was ousted from Egypt. She carries her baggage proudly in everything she does. From what I know, she carries a degree in 'social studies' along with that baggage. She's not much of a scholar though. Not that scholarship counts for much- Daniel Pipes has a doctorate in history and yet his rhetoric is inferior to most of the editors here. His loose tongue's got him caught as a bigot too often to be considered funny anymore. Anyway, I'm done with this and other articles like it. '''And who said you can't quote Karen Armstrong?''' ] 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Aminz does good work partly because he's great at finding sources. I try to be the same way. 90% of being a good Misplaced Pages editor is the willingness to do the drudge work involved in digging up sources. I will back you up 110% adding reliably sourced information that comes at this subject from another perspective. Unfortunately, as I've noted, those professors most sympathetic to Islam like Esposito and Said seem to be the ones least willing to perform actual scholarship. As a Wikipedian, I can only lament this as it reduces the sphere of information we have to draw upon in order to construct balanced articles on the subject. - ] 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Merzbow, yeah, the lack of scholars sympathetic to Islam who work on Dhimmi is unfortunate. --] 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

H.E. it is not proper to call somebody "witch"! You can criticize her, that's easy; but she must NOT be offended. Pecher said Karen Armstrong is a writer and not a scholar (and an unreliable source). Pecher believes Karen Armstrong doesn't hold any academic degree related to what she writes. I am wondering by the same standards, Bat Ye'or should be considered as unreliable. Let's wait for Pecher's argument. --] 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:If H.E. wants to quote Armstrong and can find a relevant passage on dhimma, then I'll back him up, seeing as how Bostom is a medical doctor and he's quoted. - ] 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't concur. Karen Armstrong was once censured by Pecher et al. People not more qualified than her must be censured as well. --] 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Karen Armstrong was not "censured" (which means "condemned" in English), but disqualified from reliable sources because she is not a scholar, but a popular writer, covering any subject that yields money: from the history of the myth to Jerusalem to Buddhism. Bat Ye'or, on the other hand, has been approved as a scholar who has been publishing her works through university presses for several decades and who has devoted her scholarship exclusively to the issue of the history of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. In case you didn't notice, Aminz, Bernard Lewis mentions one of her earlier works ''The Dhimmi...'' in note 1 to chapter 1 (don't remember the page number) along side the works of such great scholars as Tritton, Goitein, Fattal, Stillman, Cohen, and others. If she had been just nobody in 1984, Lewis wouldn't even notice her. Of course, Lewis says that Bat Ye'or emphasizes "negative aspects", but that's a matter of emphasis, not of factual accuracy; in other words, if she had misrepresented something, Lewis would have noticed it, but he didn't. Consequently, there is no reason to claim she is not a reliable source. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: No! Bernard Lewis mentions the work of great scholars such as Tritton, Goitein, Fattal, Stillman, Cohen, and others. Then in the last two sentences, He puts her along with Karl Binswanger who is very critical of what he calls the "dogmatic Islamophilia" of many orientalists! Here is the exact quote:

::::" Two other works, which emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record, are Bat Ye'or, "name of a book", and Karl Binswanger, "name of a book". The latter is very critical of what he calls the "dogmatic Islamophilia" of many orientalists. "

:::: This footnote is on this sentence: "Two stereotypes dominate most of what has been written on tolerance and intolerance in the Islamic world".
:::: Sidney H. Griffith stated that there is an unfortunate polemical tone in her work. Lewis seems hasn't approve her scholarship calling her "too polemical". Show me a place that Bernard Lewis approves her or quotes something from her. Lewis quotes Stillman and others. Where does he quote Bat Ye'or? --] 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::No what? Lewis does not need to approve of her, but he ackonowledges her significance. Which time did you bring up this very same Griffith's quote on this talk page? Perhaps, for the third one, but, frankly, I've lost count. See ] and ] for better collections of reviews of her works. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: One thing I am sure is that her quotes should be attributed to herself (and not stated as facts) because she is controversial. I need to do more research about her. I am trying to see if any renowned scholar has found her reliable enough to quote her books. She may have done some great job. If her works are truly better than those of the renowned scholars (as some reviews suggest) and if her books are "all" factually correct, then there should be no reason for the renowned scholars to avoid quoting her. --] 10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Pecher states that BY has been publishing "through university presses". This is not quite accurate - at least if the bibliography in the article can be relied on You will see that she has published four books with one publisher based in a minor university, and one book with another (Geneva) publisher. This adds a little to her status, but not much. When comparing her with Karen Armstrong, it should be remembered that BY is a polemicist, whereas KA is a popularizer. Neither are first-class sources and need to be used with caution, but a different kind of caution in each case. ] 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Every source msut be used with caution, i.e. minding NPOV. Bat Ye'or, however, if not a "polemicist", but a scholar, even if not related to the academe; there is much more needed to justify the claim of her being a polemicist than some chastisement for a polemical tone. Anyway, as far as I understand, positive reviews of her works by academic scholars make little impression here because they don't fit a predetermined picture. Karen Armstrong, on the other hand, being a "popularizer" as Itsmejudith described her, need not be used at all, since she does no independent research. Everything that can be found in her books and can be found in scholarly sources as well must be taken from those scholarly sources directly; on the other hand, if something can be found in her books, but cannot be found in scholarly sources, then she just made it up. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==BAT YE'OR and WP:RS==

I won't bother asking people to read WP:RS, I'll quote the damned thing here so it can't be avoided:

* A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we can feel free to assert them.

* An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Misplaced Pages if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

Now, given the criticisms that Aminz has produced (and I can produce more), the statements derived from Bat Ye'or cannot be regarded as fact, but opinion. As such, "According to Bat Ye'or" or "Bat Ye'or" says" followed by whatever information that uses her books as citations is acceptable. To simply state something as a fact in the article and then finish it with the citation isn't acceptable, given her credibility as a scholar is questionable at best.They must be represented as such. Aminz, by the same token any statement by Karen Armstrong can also be included. You were mistaken in taking Pecher's words at face value. Please don't be naive. There are editors here who want to saturate articles with anti-Islamic views and exclude all views that could remotely be seen as sympathetic to the image of Muslims. I'm going to edit the article to make it clear that opinions are framed as opinions and not fact. Though I generally respect Bernard Lewis' work, the criticism he's recieved as being an 'orientalist' makes the same approach appropriate for him. ] 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ] 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:NOPE. We need to be convinced that Bat Ye'or is a reliable source. She doesn't seem to have rigid academic studies and Lewis doesn't seem to approve her scholarship. Why should Misplaced Pages accept it given that Karen Armstrong is already rejected as a reliable source? No, Either Bat Ye'or can be quoted or not. If yes, THEN her quotes maybe her opinions. I am now thinking of removing her quotes unless one can prove me otherwise. --] 06:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: That sounds reasonable. I'd compromise and limit quotes derived from her books to a criticism section. I'd warn you about taking anything Pecher says at face value. I'm not sure there's a requirement that content here be based on sources that are impressive academically- only that they be published. ] 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Let's wait for Pecher. He may prove to us that Bat Ye'or is a reliable source, who knows. --] 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::: You guys are not seeing the big picture. ] is a guideline and not a policy precisely because where the line should be drawn is relative to a particular article. Should we only quote published professors on an article about a Pokeman character? Nope, or else there wouldn't be an article. Given that an article should exist in the first place, the goal is to restrict ourselves as far as possible to allow an encyclopedic presentation of the subject, but not so far that we have no material to work with. If we exclude Ye'or, Bostom, etc., we essentially have no article, because there are basically no professors publishing in this arena. This isn't going to be allowed to happen, folks. So it looks like the rule of thumb here is that somebody can be quoted if they have published a number of books on Islamic history, and have been recognized by multiple independent sources, but it's not necessary for them to have a relevant degree or job in the field. - ] 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Merzbow, We have bernard lewis and a few others. Why aren't they enough? unfortunately, i haven't got to read much of lewis's works, but they seem very rich. I don't agree with you that "If we exclude Ye'or, Bostom, etc., we essentially have no article, because there are basically no professors publishing in this arena." --] 07:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: For example, what you just removed Merzbow can be easily supported by lewis's work. --] 07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: Lewis is an exception, but who else? We can't write the entire article based on Lewis. ] 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::: ] is another example. It would be also good to find a book written by an early renowned Muslim on Dhimmi. We don't have to only use the orientalist views. --] 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::"Early renowned Muslim" would only qualify as a primary source, not as a secondary source acceptable per ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

::: And for the record H.E., some random article by some unknown guy on a website called 'opendemocracy.net' falls way outside of any possible definition of a 'reliable source' for the ] article by anyone's standards. You didn't actually think you were going to sneak that through, did you? :) - ] 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Merzbow, that's remarkable hypocricy considering your post just before this one. Look through the Islam-related articles here and see how often websites like Faithfreedom.org and Dhimmiwatch.com are used. All of a sudden a website isn't up to RS snuff? Where's the rule that says a publication must be in paper form? Is POV-bias determining the criteria by which you hold sources to higher standards or lower ones? If Bat Ye'or polemics can be taken as fact, this is perfectly acceptable as well. ] 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually checked the author of that quote and found some bio for her. She seemed to have relevant academic degree; I wasn't able to make any decision about her, so I left it for others to check it. --] 07:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:It's still a web article on a random website, not even a published newspaper, and certainly not from a book. - ] 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:: It's random because you don't know of it? There is no WP rule that forbids content that isn't from a published-on-paper source. ] 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that also needs to be checked (to make sure that the article is indeed written by the author). --] 07:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:For the record: contrary to H.E.'s misleading claims above the article ''never'' quotes from Andrew Bostom or Daniel Pipes. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:48, 15 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dhimmi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on June 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dhimmi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dhimmi at the Reference desk.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconIslam Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lwalker3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced claims of second-class status

I placed the unreliable source and citation needed tags on the claims of second class status in this argument months ago and since there has been no effort to add sources I am now leaning towards deletion. The only source provided is a link to a much less reputable wiki page, which is not a scholarly source. If you want to source what that page says you have to follow the sources from that page and link those. You cannot just cite an ideologically biased wiki page as definitive evidence on a historical topic. Those who wish to keep the references to supposed second-class status would do well to add a real source before it is deleted. Puma6374 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

https://nyupress.org/9781479889457/the-sword-of-ambition/
Full of arguments why Jews and Christians need to be firmly kept in second class status.
"The dimmis must not be permitted to call themselves by Muslim names, being addressed as 'Abu I-Hasan, 'Ab l-Husayn; 'Abu 'Ali,' 'Abu Tahir,' and the like. Likewise, we must bar them from using the honorific title of Shaykh, for the dignity of Islam and the pride of the faith flatly forbid that they should do this. They must be compelled to wear their distinguishing belts and clasp them about their waists in plain view. Let the rider take care not to hide his distinguishing belt by sitting on it. They must not be permitted to ride any kind of horse or mule. Let them not pass by the tombs of Muslims by day or by night. They must not be permitted caparisoned mounts. Let the caskets of their dead-open, not closed -be pulled along the ground by ropes of palm fiber. They must be forbidden to carry their caskets on their shoulders. Let them instead be dragged through the dust." The last part of the document reads: "Let them be forbidden to make their tombs white." Victoryodaiken (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC

Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. patsw (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this section is misleading.

By way of rebuttal, consider this paragraph from a 14 century Muslim bureaucrat in Egypt (https://nyupress.org/9781479889457/the-sword-of-ambition/ )

"The dimmis must not be permitted to call themselves by Muslim names, being addressed as 'Abu I-Hasan, 'Abu 'Ali,' 'Abu Tahir,' and the like. Likewise, we must bar them from using the honorific title of Shaykh, for the dignity of Islam and the pride of the faith flatly forbid that they should do this. They must be compelled to wear their distinguishing belts and clasp them about their waists in plain view. Let the rider take care not to hide his distinguishing belt by sitting on it. They must not be permitted to ride any kind of horse or mule. Let them not pass by the tombs of 'Muslims by day or by night. They must not be permitted caparisoned mounts. Let the caskets of their dead-open, not closed -be pulled along the ground by ropes of palm fiber.They must be forbidden to carry their caskets on their shoulders. Let them instead be dragged through the dust." The last part of the document reads:'Let them be forbidden to make their tombs white.' 

Victoryodaiken (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories: