Misplaced Pages

I think this section of the article on sources in wikipedia best applies to this letter.Yuber 00:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Yuber, if you're going to insert the POV tag, note its disclaimer which states: lease see the relevant discussion on the talk page. That means specifically for that given insertion of the tag. Please make sure to do so for all articles. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above shows why I think this article is very POV. The first sentence doesn't talk about the meaning of the word and reads as if the Qur'an mandates asking for monetary tribute from someone. Also, the quote attributed to Muhammad was created by a Jewish historian and exists in no other history, Muslim or secular. This article is POV for sure.Yuber 23:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties following you. Note that I was the one who created this talk page, and please recall where that article was before that (edit war wise). Also, note that I reverted to YOUR version, not anyone elses. A little leeway, please. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And, you have yet to answer my qeustion above; leading me to believe (still), that I am invisible to you unless I revert your changes. Moreover, your comments above are broad statements which neglect to address, conretely, any specific changes. I'm not certain how they apply to the insertion of the tag at this point in time, which I tend to view as a shortcut to discussing the issues here, and as such, strongly discourage. Of course, you are free to insert the tag just as I am fre to revert it. El_C 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You didn't revert to my version. The version that exists right now isn't mine. Here's what I find POV:

• Introduction:

This intro is more NPOV and more accurate: The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one . The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:

Jayjg's intro is highly POV because it is suggesting that the taking of a tax from someone is mandated by the Qur'an, which is totally false.

• Muhammad quote:

Not found in any other history, secular or Muslim.

• Hedayah:

Hedayah is legal commentary, not a definition. Yuber 23:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't matter, your name was on that revision indicating changes on your part, Yes, the above is fine as an explanation, but next time, it should be made a priori to the insertion. Anyway, it's a legal commentary with definitions, no? I'm sure this could all be qualified, but one step at a time. You don't wish for people to resist your changes simply because they are hard pressed to follow what you're doing... El_C 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm inclined to revert you on principle simply for you failing to address (or even acknowledge) my question in the section above. El_C 23:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber (Talk | block) (Please stop reverting a POV heading, I explained it on the talk page) — that is not a fair edit summary, I did not revert the tag once the comments were provided. El_C 23:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What question would that be? I looked over that section and it was about Moshe Gil's letter. My contention was that it exists in no other history of Islam either Muslim or secular. You asked if Moshe Gil's argument was widely disputed in the scholarship. From the summary of his book, I take it his argument is that Muslims forcefully took over Palestine and subjected everyone to their rule and forced them to convert. In that case, his argument is widely disputed.Yuber 23:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that was it. But I was not asking about how that argument is viewed, unless it's inextricably tied to the one regarding the letter. Simply put, I am unfamilliar with his work and wanted to learn more. And, from your answer, I'm still not sure how it stands and viewed in the scholarship (though it may, indeed, provide some clues, it isn't enough at this point). I have no opinion on any of this, by the way. Are there any references you can provide where he is being criticized for this? El_C 00:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitions belong in the definition section

Definitions of Jizyah belong in the definition section, commentary on its application belongs in the commentary section. Please do not mistake one for the other, thanks. Jayjg

Following up:

1. One person says that the underlying root of the word jizyah is jaza, meaning "compensation", and defines it as "A sum of money to be put on anyone who enters the themah (protection and the treaty of the muslims) from the people of the book."
2. Another person says it derives from ’idjzã, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."
3. A third says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat."

Can you explain why the statement first is a definition, but the second and third are not? Jayjg 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Asking again, Yuber; why do you insert your preferred definitions in the "Source" section, and remove definitions your don't like from the "Definitions" section entirely? This blatant POV pushing really must come to an end at some point, ideally voluntarily. Jayjg 17:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No other histories (Muslim or secular)

Yuber, can you please source this claim? Have you read all other histories, Muslim and secular, to know what each one says? Jayjg 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Gil the Jew

Yuber, why do you insist on identifying Moshe Gil as a Jewish historian? I find this troubling for a couple of reasons:

1. How do you know he is a Jew? You claim he is one, and "a proud one at that", but what evidence do you have for this? Are you speculating based on his name? How do you know he is not a Muslim? Christian? Son of a Jew and a Christian woman who considers himself non-Jewish? Why do you feel your speculations can be entered as fact on Misplaced Pages?
2. Even more troubling, why is it relevant? You also claim "the rest of the commentators in here's religions are relevant" but have entered neither religion nor ethnicity for any of the other sources provided on this page. We quote from Norman Stillman, Fred Donner, S.D. Goitein, Thomas Arnold, Bat Yeor, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Shakir, Khalifa, Pikthal, Yusuf Ali, etc., and in no case did you find it necessary to speculate about their religion and/or ethnicity, yet for some reason here you insist on it. This looks to me like a rather crude attempt to poison the well, but I'd be interested in your explanation.

Thanks. Jayjg 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you rather the description be a professor at Tel Aviv university in Israel? The credibility of the source is in question, so he should be identified in some way.Yuber 23:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The credibility of the source is not in question for any particular rational reason. As for his University, you don't include that for any of the other people mentioned here. Jayjg 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

We did before you stripped out the source citiation for one of the links. I'm going to add it back, because IMHO it's relevant. Klonimus 01:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not included in the body of the article itself, and never has been. Jayjg 01:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, that particular commentator was never even mentioned by name, just referred to as a "modern commentator". Jayjg 01:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

4th revert

Yuber, you've reverted to your preferred order and preferred wording (The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one . The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:) four times now. The fact that the versions are slightly different is irrelevant; this kind of gaming of the revert rule is frowned upon, and people are blocked for complex reverts all the time. I'm giving you a chance to revert back before I report you. Please take it. Jayjg 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, please look at the edit history. I made an edit today, then you reverted. Then I reverted, then you reverted. Then I reverted again, then you reverted. You're on three reverts, I'm on two. Thanks.Yuber 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your first edit returned the order and wording from May 15. That counts as the first revert. I really hate to have you blocked again, Yuber, please take this opportunity to revert yourself. Jayjg 23:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My first edit was not a revert.Yuber 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Think it over very, very carefully. I'm telling you how policy is interpreted. I'll give you a few minutes. Jayjg 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been mulling bringing Yuber up for an RfC to have him limited to one revert per day on any Islamic, Middle Eastern, Israeli, or Jewish topic. Yuber seems incapable of contributing to an Islam related article without getting into a revert war with sombody. The Complex reverts, and unmarked reverts are very annoying and could be contructed as acting in bad faith Klonimus 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, your first edit was a revert, because you went back to a pervious edit of yours (which you have entered many times in the past) whereby you switch the imposition of with etymology in =sources=. I urge you to read the three revert policy more closely, and to revert yourself accordingly. A complex reverts is still a revert. El_C 01:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my Edits.

• A Jizyah upon. (THis preserves Yuber's idea of the word having no intrinsic meaning, and that it was later assigned its current meaning later)
• Move the translation stuff into the source section.
• Moshe Gil of Tel Aviv University, nice NPOV way to describe him.
• Added some Info to the links section. I think it's very important to describe outbound links.

Klonimus 01:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Amendments

I made an ammendment but Yuber deliberately removed it. Please check the history!

The Jizyah is clearly an imperial tax that was imposed to humilate the non-Muslims whose lands were conquered. Therefore, I feel this should be added: "that originated from the era of Islamic Imperialism"

and I feel "protection of the Muslim community" should be ammended to "right to live among the Muslim community" since if a non-Muslim fails to pay the Jizyah he will be normally executed.

--Garywbush 17:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is sort of correct. The jizyah, along with certain other rules imposed on dhimmi, originated from the early era of the Arab conquests, when the Muslims were a minority military elite in the Near East. Montgomery Watt traces it to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a strong tribe would protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a certain tribute. And indeed, those who paid the jizyah were afforded the same protection as Muslims when the Islamic state was invaded. Also I am not sure it was the usual practice to execute those who didn't pay the tax; the Kitab al-Kharaj cited in this article recommends imprisoning those who didn't pay. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Moshe Gil

Jayjg and Klonimus have been involved in an explosion of bad faith editing on this article including removing the description of who Moshe Gil is. Listen, Moshe Gil doesn't have an article, we must describe who he is and "a professor at Tel Aviv University" is perfectly fine and NPOV. Also, the wording that Jayjg insists on using is still POV.Yuber 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You haven't identified any of the other many sources in the article, as I've stated above. Please respond to the many, many questions left for you above in talk, rather than your typical bad-faith revert warring. Jayjg 23:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to mention that Gil is an expert on the Cairo Geniza documents, that's more relevant than his employer. I happen to have this particular book, btw, a very scholarly piece, and as I have more time, I'll try to add something to the article. --MPerel 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This supposed "letter by Muhammad" predates those documents by two centuries and the letter is dated two years after Muhammad's death, therefore the "Cairo Geniza" documents are not relevant. There is a definite discrepancy here.Yuber 00:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think MPerel said the documents were from the Geniza, but perhaps MPerel can clarify. Jayjg 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, these aren't Geniza documents, but I am merely mentioning Gil's main expertise. However, this book is a 967-page compilation (published by Cambridge University Press) of history based on manuscripts from Jewish, Arab, and Christian communities of the time. Gil has personally examined original manuscripts in their original languages and describes examining some of them by means of ultra-violet rays with the aid of special photographic facilities. There are 19 pages referenced in the index under "jizya", so I will report some of his discussion on this topic, again, as I have more time. The context of the letter to Eilat is in the book with four other surviving letters to four other communities. This letter starts out, "To Yuhanna b. Ruba and the worthies of Ayla, Peace be with you! Praised be Allah, there is no God save Him. I have no intention of fighting you before writing to you. Thou has to accept Islam, or pay the tax, ...." The footnote gives the amount of the tax levied on the people of Ayla according to Waqidi as "300 dinars annually, for there were 300 men there." The other three letters besides the one to Eilat were to the people of Jarba, Adhruh, and Maqna. More later, probably in a few days... --MPerel 01:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I'll add one more thing before I take off, the footnote to this particular letter makes reference to several other sources concerning this letter. It's quite a lengthy footnote, but I'll just list the other sources he cites who also reference details about the letter: Ibn Sa'd, Waqidi, Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Hisham, Mas'udi, Abu 'Ubayd, Dhahabi, Diyarbakri, Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn al-Athir. I'm assuming these other sources are mostly in Arabic.

Explanation for changes

I removed the Sahih Muslim section jayjg added because I noticed that all of the information was very redundant, and was already stated later in the article. I also sourced some quotes and added an explanation for the claim that male non-Muslims who served in the military were exempt from jizya, as that claim was challenged in the article on dhimmi.Yuber 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Shahih Muslim section is another set of perfectly valid hadith, and they are different hadith from the other ones mentioned. As for your other edits, you conspicuously failed to mention your revert of a POV definition of jizya into the Sources section. You have spent several weeks tendentiously editing this article with little or no justification for your edits, and misleading edit summaries. Your goodwill period has expired. From now on, unless you actually discuss your changes first, and get consensus, they will simply be reverted. Jayjg 23:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You can revert as many times as you want, I will continue to edit. You seem to be the only one who reverts me minutes after I make an edit, and all that you just said about me could very easily be said against you.Yuber 23:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you really need to try and work with other people. Your constant reverting is thought by many people to rude and insulting. I understand that you feel that some people are trying to fill wikipedia with anti-islamic bais. But constantly reverting back to your own version, shows a deep lack trust and respect for your fellow editors.Klonimus 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do what you like Yuber, but if you can't learn to work with other editors, and can't learn to edit in order to improve the article, rather than pushing POVs, your edits will not remain. In particular, if you continue to revert to insert your preferred definition of jizya, and original research regarding its meaning, into the Sources section, you will be reverted, and I will not be bothering to try to "save" any other edits you might have made, nor even bothering to comment in the edit summary; you have my comment here, simply apply it whenever this happens. If you have any substantive positive contibutions to make, and wish them not to be reverted out of hand, make them in separate edits prior to your inevitable revert to your POV introduction. Jayjg 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the sahih, look at this sentence in the article:

Jizya was levied in the time of Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran, and Zoroastrians in Bahrain. W. Montgomery Watt traces its origin to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a powerful tribe would agree to protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a tribute, which would be refunded if the protection proved ineffectual.5 The sahih is redundant in that all that information was already present and it was an obvious POV ploy by you to restate it.Yuber 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! To begin with, the section on the hadith is comprehensively listing the various hadith in which the concept of jizyah is discussed. Moreover, when you look at that particular collection of hadith, it becomes quite clear that there is one verse in particular (actually two) which are contained in no other collections of hadith, nor discussed anywhere in the article. Of course, you deleted those unique hadiths as well; I wonder why? Could it be that you thought they reflected negatively on jizya, and deleted them all for that reason? Why of course, since your edits have, since the start of this page, been purely for the purpose of inserting apologetics and POV, and removing or discrediting anything you thought might reflect negatively on jizya. In any event, the hadith section is a comprehensive listing, and all hadith currently there will remain. I plan to add other hadith as time permits and as I am able to find them, and they will remain as well, whether they reflect positively or negatively on jizya. Jayjg 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Jayjg. Yuber does show a disturbing habit of making edits that, since the start of this page, been purely for the purpose of inserting apologetics and POV, and removing or discrediting anything Yuber thought might reflect negatively on jizya.Klonimus 01:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were all very redundant and were already talked about in the article, I cited them as sources in the history of jizya. Your paragraph contains no specific points except an analysis of my edits. As for you, Jayjg, you have engaged in complex reverting as well and have reinstated your POV definition over and over again. You can add hadith, but if they are redundant and already cited then I will remove them.Yuber 05:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the hadiths were not summarized anywhere; I challenge you to point out where. In any event, the hadith section will be comprehensive. The Source section contains no definition of mine at all, much less a "POV" one; please stop trying to insert a POV definition into it. Jayjg 05:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were just references for the history section. I already pointed out where above.Yuber 05:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the hadiths were the hadiths, not references for the history section; please stop removing them, and in particular please stop removing the ones you don't like - it betrays a dismaying POV. Jayjg 05:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

History section

Is there any way we can move the history section up towards the top, preferably after the lead? Either that or expand the lead by incorporating main points from the history section; this would help the general audience. As it stands right now, the article is not easy to read. As an outsider, I would like to be drawn into the article, learning more about the concept as I go along. --Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I also think it would be of benefit to start the article with an origins of section. See also Charles' comment three sections up. El_C 04:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas; go for it. Jayjg 13:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was (sorta!) hoping you would volunteer to author it, Jay, as you obviously know a great deal more about this topic than myself. El_C 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You're the historian, not me. :-) Perhaps MPerel can work on it, she has the big book on it. Jayjg 15:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm primarily an historian of 20th Century central Africa though, so my knowledge of Jizya is truly dismal. Yes, perhaps we should ask her nicely to write it (I'm only saying that since I don't think intimidation would work – otherwise naturally, that would be my first recourse). El_C 16:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What about splitting most of the Hadith out of the article Jizyah (Sources). I appreacite your work Jayjg, in ducmenting mention of Jizya in the Hadith, however it seems to me that Hadith are in general too obscure for a general purpose article.Klonimus 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It's still a small article, no need to start breaking out sub-articles yet. But I take your point, I'll move them down lower, into the Islamic legal stuff, so they aren't as prominent. Jayjg 15:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were all very redundant so I just cited them in the history section. I also reinstated the NPOV definition and reinserted removed quotes.Yuber 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it is customary to discuss before making such drastic changes to an article. You've made very substantial unsourced changes, and deleted alot of unique information. Without discussion, such actions might be viewed by some as inserting POV or even vandalism. I encourage you to discuss specific changes, especially ones so substantial.

Guy Montag 05:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page because of the longstanding revert war between Yuber and other editors, which seems always to hinge on the same few sentences. Please provide reputable sources to show that your edits are correct; if the dispute can't be sorted out that way, then formal or informal mediation might help. SlimVirgin 20:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed?

Can we make a list of all the disputed things in this article? Klonimus 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Imposition of Jizya text.

Yay !! a brand new Yuber revert war.

Jesus wept, Yuber, you need to stop trying to insert your favored NPOV which by concensus was rejected. And obeying the 3RR would also be nice. Klonimus 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber back AGAIN?

I see Yuber's already back - as usual, he just waited for the ban to be up, then started pushing POV.Enviroknot 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this because Yuber has reverted to the same passage 25 times in just over a month, and there's no sign he's going to stop. The passage he wants is: ""The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum. Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is, though some believe it to be mandated ..."

Other editors want: "The imposition of jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an."

I'm therefore assuming the only difference between you is the mandatory nature of the tax. Perhaps someone could check for references to add to the text, either showing it to be regarded by most scholars as mandatory, or showing there to be doubt among scholars. Let me know when you'd like to start editing it again. SlimVirgin 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here is that Yuber's whole insertion is POV and irrelevant. For example, "though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum"; who said it was in the first place? When someone answers a question that no-one is asking, that's a clear indication of POV-pushing. Similarly, "Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is"; what is the point of this? We give a whole section on the various definitions, why stick this in the section describing the source? Again, obvious POV pushing. Finally, "though some believe it to be mandated"; every single Muslim source I have found (not "some") attribute it to this verse in the Qur'an, including every source given at the end of the article. If Yuber has many sources which attribute it to some other source (which his "some" would imply), let him bring them forward. Jayjg 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why I Am Not A Muslim

User:67.161.2.106 has removed the following text:

Bat Ye'or has written about the history and practice of jizya in her book Dhimmitude. Ibn Warraq has described jizya as discriminatory and oppressive in his book Why I Am Not A Muslim.

I will leave it to the experts to discuss whether these books are relevant to the article. -- Aleph4 13:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the article

I propose to rearrange the article as follows:

1. Quotes from hadiths should be moved from Application to Sources (renamed from Source), after Sura 9:29;
2. The sentence "Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah." should be moved from Sources to Definition;
3. Islamic Legal commentary should be a separate section;
4. Resources should be changed to References.--Pecher 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing mediation

There is currently an ongoing mediation involving the contents of this article. Anyone who has been involved in the recent disputes over this article's contents is requested to attend to help achieve consensus. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

oldid=43164168

Disputed edit:

"and choose not to serve in the army. In return, they were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and restrictions. Muslim citizens were required to pay zakat instead of Jizya."

It's ahistorical to claim that dhimmis were free to choose military service. They could serve only after conversion, and even that is an simplification. So if they could choose after all, it was the choice to convert or not. Saying that, "in return, they were considered under the protection" implies the omission of the other aspects of the dhimmi status as humiliation. It's a misrepresentation by ommission and not fit for a short introduction, as the first paragraph ought to be. It gets explained in detail afterwards anyway. --tickle me 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We should discuss this issue in the Ongoing mediation. For now, you can revert it if you want. Please add the disputed tag, if you want to do so. I, personally, will not revert it. Let's see what happens in the Ongoing mediation. Thanks --Aminz 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus?

Jesus overturned the concept of Jizya? o.O How in the zarking frell does that work out, either my historical math is wrong, or that sentence needs some clarification. I tagged a ((fact)) on it for now Sherurcij 18:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The hadith in question say that jizya will be eventually abolished by Jesus after his second coming. Pecher 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about Zakat: is there evidence that Zakat was spent as freely upon Dhimmis as it was upon Muslims? If it wasn't, then the relative size of the taxes is irrelevant, because the Dhimmis will have had their own versions of Zakat in addition to Jizya.Timothy Usher 21:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Zakat was meant only for the Muslim poor, while jizya was a tax paid by dhimmis in favor of the Muslims, so you're right: their relative sizes are irrelevant. Pecher 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jibran1, what do you think of the points above?

It seems to me as if California were to have to send money to New York every year, and New Yorkers were to say, hey, at least you don't have to pay NY sales tax. Worse, because New York would also be making all the decisions. I'll find the cite, but I've seen one recently that made it clear that only Muslims could receive Zakat. If so, then the Dhimmis would presumably have their own communal taxes for the same purpose (or deny services to their own). And if so, to say that Dhimmis are exempt from Zakat is thus tremendously misleading.Timothy Usher 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to answer the points :). While it is true that the Zakah is only entitled for poor Muslims, the other tax that is paid by Muslims ONLY (Tithe- an agricultural tax- I have spoken about this at Talk:Islam) is used to pay all poor, including non-Muslims. So over here, taxes taken from the Muslims are being used to pay for the non-Muslims. Furthermore, if there is still need for financial aid for the non-Muslims, they have all righs to be entitled for it from the Muslim Exchequer/state treasury, so they can be financially stable enough as the Muslims. This is to add to the fact that poor non-Muslims are exempt from Jizya, their sustenance is provided by the Exchequer. Plus, the jizya that is taken from non-Muslims is in return of a service (military protection) provided to them, to cover costs and other expenditures of this service. If they wish to not pay jizya, they can join the military and I have stated instances below where some non-Muslims joined the military and therefore were exempted from jizya. Islamic Economics is a huge topic and I have only provided a mere summary of a few issues, in reference to your questions. For further questions pertaining to Islamic Economics, you can ask Islamic scholars and Muftis at http://www.islam.tc and http://www.islam-qa.com Thanks for your input and efforts at Misplaced Pages :) --Jibran1 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see here any reliable sources saying that zakat was used to pay to non-Muslim poor. Pecher 06:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what is the Arabic term you're translating as tithe? Do you mean kharaj?Timothy Usher 06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tithe" is apparently ushr, but again I cannot see any relaible source saying that it could be used to pay non-Muslim poor. Pecher 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas we also have Kharaj, an tax on non-Muslim agricultural land. The overwhelming majority of agricultural land in the early Caliphate will fall under Kharaj - it'd be the equivalent of space aliens imposing property tax from their flying saucers. The idea of Jizya as a seperate poll tax comes later. In the Qur'anic reference, it clearly can't mean "poll tax" but only some generalized tribute.Timothy Usher 07:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sura 9:29

Again, Jibran1, - your wholly benevolent interpretation is un-Qur'anic.

Otherwise it might read,

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they're given the option of not serving in the military in return for a small fee, or of serving and not paying the fee, and feel very equal."Timothy Usher 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the context of this verse? Can anybody helps us? I don't have access to any tafsirs but try to find one--Aminz 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The context appears to be that they've decided to attack the Byzantines. Earlier in the Sura, it's said that some of the Pagans broke their treaty, but that's not said of the people of the book. The standards for declaring war have become considerably looser, most likely because his army is a lot more powerful than it once was. So now they will shake them down for tribute. Pretty typical behavior for armed pastoralists of any religion.Timothy Usher 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not MY interpretation. It is the interpretation of various Islamic scholars, based on Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas. Please understand that the sources of Islamic law are not limited to Qur'an. And the verse that you have quoted does mention that the non-Mulims should be subdued to pay the jizya. However, the same logic is to be applied to Muslims for not paying the Zakah. Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakah and Tithe (the other tax that only Muslims are required to pay). The following are cases when non-Muslims were not required to pay Jizya because they joined the military:

When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in 22 A.H., a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from jizyah in view of their military services.

Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire: the Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians, who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction and so on were exempted form the kharaj.

As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes. The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. The jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, which carried water to Constantinople, nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, as just compensation for their services to the state.

Thanks --Jibran1 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast this discussion to that on the Apostasy in Islam talk page. In that case, the relatively benevolent interpretation is found in the Qur'an, while the Hadith are relatively strict; here, vice-versa. Perhaps someone understands this better than I, but to me the most straightforward reading is that this was originally meant as mere tribute, not a permanent institution for dealing with tolerated religious minorities. I feel that none of us really has the expertise to answer this (and wonder if it's even answerable). I know I certainly don't.Timothy Usher 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the above should be interpreted that the exemption from jizya was voluntary. Non-Muslims living in border provinces could be recruited to the Muslim army and they were exempted from jizya for the year spent in service. However, they could serve only in the lower ranks and were not entitled to any share in the booty. Pecher 06:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jizya camel incident

The last line of his hadith is puzzling me. Can someone explain?Timothy Usher 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Malik said, "I do not think that livestock should be taken from people who pay the jizya except as jizya."
This means that:
The camel was actually PAID as jizya (instead of cash being paid as jizya). Therefore, the camel can be slaughtered and eaten. However, it would be wrong to seize livestock (in this case, the camel) if it was NOT PAID as jizya but simply the posession of people who paid jizya. --Jibran1 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me somewhat different from both your and the existing interpretation. They seized the camel and then Malik said, hey, have a heart: this should count towards their tribute. Alternately, he's saying, hey, that was pretty messed up, they're already paying us, let's not steal from them anymore. Zakat doesn't come up here, though it did in both your descriptions (whoever the other editor(s) is here).

Again, I'd like an expert (and ideally non-religious) opinion.Timothy Usher 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you have addressed me in your comment above, I will give my opinion:
Zakat does come up in the hadith when Umar asked, "Is it from the livestock of the jizya or the zakat?" and Aslam replied, "From the livestock of the jizya." Umar said, "By Allah, you wish to eat it." Aslam said, "It has the brand of the jizya on it.". Umar asked this because he is aware that if it is from Zakat, then he is not entitled to it since the Zakat is only (& exclusively) for the poor. And Aslam said that 'it has the brand of the jizya on it' which means that it has been marked as being jizya collected from non-Muslims.

The facts of the hadith were malicous...(errr...I am forced to assume good faith)... erroneously changed in the article (along with the jizya fact):
The hadith clearly mentions that Umar odered the camel to be salughtered. It does not mention that he slaughtered the camel. Also, the hadith does not explicitly mention that he ate the camel. It says that he districuted the slaughtered camel to the wives of the Prophet, his (Umar's) daughter, and invited the Muhajirun and the Ansar to eat it. It is possible that he ate of the slaughtered camel, but that is not what the hadith explicitly mentions. --Jibran1 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary may have been inexact, but that's no reason for inserting original research regarding it. I've cleaned it up to state the facts. Jayjg 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you now. The brand of the jizya was on it, so it was already paid. Sorry. Thanks for clearing it up.

This Hadith would appear to nothing to do with this article.Timothy Usher 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A hadith about Jizya has nothing to do with the article on Jizya? Jayjg 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I only meant we don't really learn much about Jizya, other than that it can be paid in camels. I suppose that's not nothing.Timothy Usher 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that, and the jizya livestock was branded, and that it was given to the wives of Muhammed, etc. Jayjg 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism's not very critical

There are only two weak critique's with rebutals.

The Military service argument is as weak as ever, the subduded people could not have weapons and armor incase the revolted against there masters(simple). This has no place in the Criticism section as it is a justification for the jizah NOT a critisism. It should be moved to the Application section, as it is NOT a criticism.

The Jizah=zakat defence is still the imposition of Muslim values on non-muslims, calling it a different name does not make it different. Muslims Choose to pay the zakat in order to be a good muslim, non-muslims are Forced to pay jizah or the will be sent to prison. I'm going to re-edit the criticism section to one that is critical of the concept of Jizah, not the current straw man arguments that are present. Please reply on here not just revert.Hypnosadist 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section looks rather odd in a historical article, and I don't see any place for such a section in this article either. It is just not encyclopedic to shove everything that can possibly be construed as a negative aspect of jizya from today's into a separate section. The article should just state the facts and let the reader decide. Pecher 17:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is much better than Dhimmi in which you mix everything the way you liked and no one and understand Dhimmi concept. Please leave this article alone. --- Faisal 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"and no one and understand Dhimmi concept." What do you mean?Timothy Usher 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Criticism" section might be profitably merged with some other section. For now, I've given it a more honest title.Timothy Usher 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Timothy, that was a good idea. Pecher 09:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, why don't you copy 'n paste the article to a testpage, and edit it as you like. So we see what you concept of dimma looks like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.233.204 (talk • contribs)

I agree with ibrahimfaisal, you should put your version of dhimmi on a test page. It should be an interesting exercise, as i have never understood what you problem was with dhimmi other than it telling non-muslims of that concept. Atleast this current edit of Jizah places this concept in its right place as a method of Colonialism and racism.Hypnosadist 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a wonderful idea. I have decided to do that. You will see a new Dhimmi article getting started soon In-sha-Allah. --- Faisal 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality has been compromised

When people will notice than this article would become another dispute ground. It is possible that tag similar to the one at the top of Dhimmi article appears on this article too. See what are the changes made in the last few days. They rename critisium on jiya to Humiliating nature of Jizya and remove all the point presenting otherside view. --- Faisal 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, this has already been explained to you - the problem isn't the point of view represented by your material, it's the lack of a reliable scholarly source. Aren't there any such sources that make the points you'd like to make? And if there aren't, could it possibly be because they're not true?

The section was renamed because, if you look at the material therein, it's about humiliation of Dhimmis, not about criticism (which anyhow, shouldn't be corralled into its own section). Are the quoted Muslim authorities now critics of Islam?Timothy Usher 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I got it. www.americanthinker.com is reliable and so is debate.org.uk. But all the websites related to Islam are unreliable. What a justifiable criteria you have. Please make me your student as today I have learned something from you. --- Faisal 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, you've made a good point. www.americanthinker.com and debate.org.uk are hardly reliable sources, but this problem is not rectified by inserting another unreliable source. I'm going to work on improving the article using reliable sources in the near future. Pecher 12:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher you could do the same with the text you have deleted. But may be you do not want to? Tell me why should not I delete this all badly referenced topic right now just like you have done? --- Faisal 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the accuracy of that material or what? Pecher 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jizya collection in parts of Egypt

I don't know the reliability of this source, but thesearticles from the censored archives of the Middle Eastern Times show at least one way the jizya is being collected. I know it is just a small part of the wide definition of jizya, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Iafrate 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a section on contemporary aspects of jizya, and these articles should fit there. In addition, Hamas has also confirmed that once they establish an independent state, they would require jizya from Jews and Christians. Pecher 09:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another example of jizah and dhimmi in the modern world, this should go into a contempory uses section. But first the reliabilty of the Middle East Times should be investigated, as well as sourcing the Jizah comments from Hamas.Hypnosadist 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK here is a hamas offical talking about jizah, this is copyed from american thinker but says where the interview happened, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. "Interviewed by Wall Street Journal reporter Karby Legget (and published in the December 23-26 edition The Wall Street Journal), Hassam El-Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, confirmed the organizations plan to re-institute the humiliating jizya". A transcript would be nice if anyone has WSJ online subscription.Hypnosadist 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• there's a paper from freedomhouse.org, certainly a partial organisation, but the paper is well sourced and extensive. cf p 34-37
• memri.org cites Tunisian researcher Dr. Amel Grami from ManoubaUniversity in Tunis: "It is clear that a country's policy of discrimination is one of the most central factors in harming those of a different faith... Whoever follows the words of the senior officials discovers that they ceaselessly boast about the rules that oblige the ahl al-dhimma to pay jizya 'with willing submission,' and that they never stop praising the contracts that restrict non-Muslims in the areas of housing, external appearance, performance of their religious rituals, and upkeep of their houses of worship..."
• Al-Ahram Weekly cites Samir Morqos, head of the Coptic Centre for Social Studies: "Indicative of the Gamaa's outlook is its handling of the question of the jizya, or poll tax levied on non-Muslim communities. They approved the Khedive Said's abolition of the jizya ; however, they did so on the grounds that the decree was issued by Egypt's ruler, thus evading a juristic judgement on the concept of jizya itself and leaving the door open to the possibility of revoking that decree"

--tickle me 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Say, Faisal, what do you think of the Jizya collection in Egypt? Fair and square - they don't have to pay the Zakat, right? And they don't have to fight, since the Muslim Brotherhood will protect them.Timothy Usher 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Egypt an Islamic state, where a yucky puppet of USA/CIA is sitting since long time? There is no Islamic state in the world, where Shria is implemented correctly. Understand the meaning of Islamic state first please. An Islamic state is not for some group of people it is for all the Muslims of the world and govern by Caliph. Or you can continue using whatever you like for your propaganda. --- Faisal 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the constitutions of Egypt, Pakistanand Saudi Arabia (just as an extra example) all refer to Sharia in one way or another. Maybe they are not implememted correctly according to you, but that doesn't change the fact that they are implemented. (If I had the time, I could most likely find several more constitutions where Sharia is mentioned) Iafrate 10:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am Pakistani and I know that except couple of law all the laws are what left by British. Do you think that British law are Islamic? Also my country ruler is secular, who told others to distance themself from Islam. The law which are islamic are not totally islamic but a mixture. Rest is upto you. You can now use Egypt or Pakistani laws and write an Islamic article. For me doing that would be extremely wrong. --- Faisal 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So when a girl from family X is found with a boy of family Y, and a local Sharia court sentences a female relative of boy Y to be gang-raped by relatives of girl X, that's British law? I think not.Timothy Usher 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sharia court that is referred in the above reference by Iafrate is more like an advisory body. And it objective is to change country into an Islamic state. However, no one has ever act on its advice. The supreme court and high courts does not work according to Sharia (also even not called Sharia courts). The Sharia court had given advice Govt. to ban Interest but Govt. had decline to do that. The law about rape is Islamic however NO one ever got any punishment because of that law. It is the only well-known Islamic law in Pakistan and Govt. want to change it too. --- Faisal 10:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh what you are saying Timothy Usher is Jirga. It is not even a court but found in lawless areas (not controled by Pakistan fully). Those people are ignorant and their decision has nothing to do with islam remotely. Please do not insult Islam by associating those things with Islam. I beg you. --- Faisal 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal is right: according to sharia, the girl in question must be put to death by stoning rather than gang-raped. Pecher 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why only girl???????????????? Why not also the boy????? And why not you tell that it is only done when 4 people have seen the rape/sex. According to Sharia both (boy and girl) could be stoned to death, if 4 people have seen the intercourse. Also these 4 people should be very reliable persons. This law is implemented in Pakistan. The only famously known islamic law. However, NOT a single person (Guy or a Girl) is ever get punished. --- Faisal 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the jirgas' version of justice is based on ignorance, and is not a good example of Islamic law. My point was only that it's hardly British law. I see what you're saying now - that the official federal law is based on British law.Timothy Usher 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy User, for agreeing first thing with me. May be from now onwards we get agreed more often In-sha-Allah. --- Faisal 18:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to discuss this issue, but you, Faisal, are wrong on all counts. The Pakistani law on adultery is not especially Islamic, not is it the "only famously known"; the law on blasphemy, which prescribes death penalty for insulting Islam or Muhammad, is equally infamous and entirely Islamic. Regarding adultery, 75% of female inmates in Pakistan are those charged with adultery, and most of them happen to be rape victims. Pakistan is one of very few countries in the world that prosecutes victims, not perpetrators of rape. See this report, for example. Pecher 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is good to know that now you figure is 75% and previously from your message it looks like it was only females. I do not know from where you got 75% although and hence consider its an orginal-research. No one is ever stoned to death in Pakistan. --- Faisal 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini speech

The following was deleted from the article:"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.""

• 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?
• 4. As for my personal opinion, if one is interested, is that: as testified by the quote from Grand Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi and the statement above, the "main" point of Jizya is not humiliation at all. In the first place it is in exchange for the protection dhimmi’s receive (as the literal meaning of the word shows) and in lieu of the taxes, such as zakat, that only Muslims pay + it is a "sign" of dhimmi's acceptance of Islamic government. In the second place, at least one can say that it is supposed to have a humiliating flavor. Now, depending on the scholar some intensify this humiliating flavor and some take it easy (or making arguments using other verses such as "017.070: Verily we have honoured the Children of Adam.."). It is subjective. Can it be criticized? yes, but in an honest and appropriate way.

Can someone please back up my arguments (1-3) since I am editing wikipedia very infrequently. Thanks.

P.S. The Quote from "Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi":

"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" (Tafsir Nemooneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, on verse 9:29) --128.32.39.126 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We have Wikiquote for quotes like that. Pecher 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is good to include this in wikiquote as well as this article. Good suggestion! 128.32.39.126 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But why is this interesting enough to be included among few(?) quotes from Khomeni in Wikiquote? 128.32.39.126 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take this Out

The article says: It was of course, evident that the tax represented a discrimination and was intended, according to the Koran's own words, to emphasize the inferior status of the non-believers. It seemed, however, that from the economic point of view, it did not constitute a heavy imposition, since it was on a sliding scale, approximately one, two, and four dinars, and thus adjusted to the financial capacity of the taxpayer. This impression proved to be entirely fallacious, for it did not take into consideration the immense extent of poverty and privation experienced by the masses, and in particular, their persistent lack of cash, which turned the 'season of the tax' into one of horror, dread, and misery.

There is no Quranic Ayat that talk about humilating Dhimmi. Hence either present Ayat or above text should be deleted. --- Faisal 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, see the word "sagharoon" in verse 9:29. Sagharoon, I think is derived from "saghara" (which means "small") so, I guess saghiroona should mean "to bring low" (one translation says "subdued", other one "brought low" and the third one "being in the state of subjection"). I don't know arabic but check it out with an Arabic native speaker to see if "sagharoon" is exactly the same as "humuliated" or not.

It's unacceptable to remove sourced material just because you disagree with it. Pecher 20:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source talk about Quran in support of his humiliation regarding jizya. If there is no such evidence/Ayat in Quran then your source is lying and it should be removed. --- Faisal 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's your original research, and it is completely irrelvant on Misplaced Pages. Pecher 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay then I will report this paragraph too. --- Faisal 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. S.D. Goitein in Evidence on the Muslim Poll Tax from Non-Muslim Sources, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1963; Vol. 6, Pp. 278-279.