Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-27 Dhimmi and Jizya

< Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pecher (talk | contribs) at 09:44, 31 March 2006 (→Revert War). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:44, 31 March 2006 by Pecher (talk | contribs) (→Revert War)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: Pecher 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?: Islam-related articles Dhimmi and Jizya

Who's involved?: Primarily, me and User:Farhansher, but some other editors, e.g. User:Karl Meier, are also taking part

What's going on?: For several weeks now, User:Farhansher has been removing well-sourced material from Dhimmi, calling it "hatemongering". The user refuses to discuss his position on the talk page. Recently, User:Farhansher began removing material and inserting material from Islamist propaganda sources to Jizya. Recently, the controversy has expnaded to People of the Book and Rules of war in Islam. In the latter article, User:Farhansher also keeps inserting Islamist propaganda from the same source, while removing germane and sourced material.

What would you like to change about that?: Engage both sides in a substative discussion and help coin a consensus.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: You can email me.

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?: Not now, perhaps.

Mediator response

Okay, I am taking this case, and since it involves multiple articles, I'll be centering the discussion here rather than on individual talk pages. So, please feel free to post arguments and such on this page. First off, I'd like a simple statement from each involved party stating what information should be included on each disputed article. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have notified Farhansher, Karl Meier, and Pecher about this ongoing mediation and, in addition, I have posted notices to the pages Dhimmi, Jizya, People of the Book, and Rules of war in Islam. If anyone knows of any other editors or articles which should be included in the scope of this mediation please contact me via my talk page. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, who is apparently also involved, has been notified of this page. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

I(Aminz) and Pecher have also had discussions regarding the dhimmi article. He reverted my edits for several times without even discussing them. His logic is that “I am twisting the sourced material”. I think Pecher's edits have 3 problems (though some of his edits are good):

1. He is assuming that whatever some particular scholar has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes them as a fact. "Lewis says X" will have more support than "X is so;” Especially the Humiliation of dhimmis part. or 'Shi'a peculiarities' part

2. Some of his quotes are clearly wrong to my mind, particularly the 'Shi'a peculiarities' part.

e.g. " Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis" is quoted from somewhere and is incorrect. The fact is that shia believes that only polytheist are najis. Their belief is based on the quranic verse 9:28. "O ye who believe! Truly the Mushriks are unclean". Even if we assume that it refers to ritual impurity, the verse is only in the context of polytheists and not dhimmis. Anyway, there is a story behind this verse and how it was used to justify the ritual impurity of polytheist. As a shia, I am well aware of the ritually impure things.

Pecher sent the website of Ali al-Sistani for me, which says that Kafirs are unclean. But the Kafirs are not Non-Muslims?!!! Some shia scholars consider Zoroastrians to be ritually unclean but nobody considers Jews or Christians to be ritually unclean. When Quran talks about the Kafirs, it is talking about Meccan Kafirs who were worshiping idols and NOT the Jews of Medina. People of the book are NOT kafirs.

I don't ask him to remove his edits in this place or other places. If he just writes "According to X, ....", I will come then and provide evidences against them.

3. He is adding irrelevant material to the article (e.g. The picture of Maimonides in the Dhimmi article. Even though he is a very famous Jew and the article talks about him, but I think this does not justify to have his picture in the article)

For more details please see

What has made me unpleasant is that he was reverting my edits wholesale without providing good reasons and was insisting that instead of writing "According to X,.." one should write "X is so".

Thanks --Aminz 04:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Something very important about the edits of Pecher: I think his edits persuade the reader to an anti islamic position. I think the article is very POV now. For example, if we want to have a part that talks about “Humiliation of dhimmis", its title should read as "Alleged Humiliation of dhimmis". Unfortunately, I think the whole article is filled with anti-islamic povs. Isn’t it better to rename the title of the article to “A critical view on the concept of Dhimmi”?

Well, maybe we should make a new article titled “A critical view on the concept of Dhimmi”. but this article is about "Dhimmi". --Aminz 05:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My next comment is that apparently Lewis is a critic of Islam. When we quote from him, it is better to say that "some critics such as Lewis say " rather than "Lewis says ". --Aminz 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz's comments about Pecher's edits, though not necessarily with all his proposed modifications (I'm particularly unkeen on the last one; Lewis is a highly reputable historian with a point of view which is not always terribly sympathetic to Islam. But all historians have some point of view, consciously or otherwise, and I don't think we need to slap a big warning label on them because of what that particular point of view may be, unless there is real evidence that it distorts - as opposed to informing - their work. And if that is the case, then we probably shouldn't be using them as a source of interpretation at all, or not without considerable reservations that go beyond this. Bat Ye'or would be such a case; Lewis would not.) Palmiro | Talk 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact: Almost all of Lewis's quotes in the article have a critical nature. I really thought that Lewis has written nothing but criticism of Islam :) That was my impression. Thus:

There are two possibilities:

1. Only his critical views have been presented in the article --> the article is highly POV at the moment.

2. Lewis is a critic of islam.

Case 2 seems to be false. Conclusion: Pecher's edits are POV. They are extracted in order to persuade the reader to an anti islamic position. I now really think that Pecher's edits are "Islamophobic POV" as Farhansher said. Based on Pecher's edits, I thought that Lewis is a critic of Islam. --Aminz 11:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, the issues on this request for mediation must be divided into two parts. One issue, for which the request was originally filed, is the behavior of Farhansher, namely his wholesale deletion of sourced material from Dhimmi, as well as wholesale insertion of material from IslamOnline website into Jizya and Rules of war in Islam. I would like to hear explanations from Farhansher on these matters. The other issue, which appears to be the one most actively discussed here is the alleged lack of neutrality of Dhimmi article. My understanding of a dispute in Misplaced Pages is that it is a situation when some editors argue that AAA is true citing their sources, while other editors argue that BBB is true, also citing sources. This is why the present dispute baffles me for the utter failure of one of the disputing sides to be specific in criticsm and to cite sources. Statements like "Pecher's edits are 'Islamophobic POV'" are not only uncivil, but also don't really cut much ice. The specific points that are really disputed are few and should not cast doubt on the article as a whole; nevertheless, let me summarize these points here:

Whether the article should say that dhimmis were exmpted from zakat: the arguments are presented on Talk:Dhimmi;
Whether the article should say that dhimmis were exempted from military service: the arguments are presented on Talk:Dhimmi;
How frequently and consistently the laws on distinctive clothing of dhimmis were enforced: the arguments are presented on Talk:Dhimmi;
Whether Shi'a Islam treats dhimmis as unclean: most arguments are on my and Amiz's talk pages. I have requested Aminz to provide a source for the claims that dhimmis are not treated as unclean; however, Aminz has so fra failed to provide any citation.

To give an example of how content dispute are resolved constructively, I can cite the issue of Maimonides's alleged conversion to Islam. Initially the article said, quoting from Bernard Lewis, that Maimonides accepted Islam under death threat before reverting back to Judaism after migrating to Egypt. An editor disputed this claim (see Talk:Dhimmi#Maimonides) and quoted sources saying that Maimonides did not convert to Islam, but was exiled along with his family. Now both views are presented with Lewis's view attributed to him in text. Making a parallel with one of the currently disputed issues, had Aminz provided the sources saying that Shi'a Islam doe not treat Jews and Christians as unclean, I would have been happy to have both views presented in the article. Just citing a Qur'anic verse is insufficient here because verses may be receive different and sometimes non-obvious interpretation. Therefore, what is required is a reference to either a Shi'a scholar or to a non-Muslim scholar of Islam. Lewis, for example, gives reference to a number of works by other Western scholars, as well to Kitab Shara'i al-Islam by Najm al-Din Jafar al-Hilli. To summarize my points: had the other side made positive and referenced contributions into the article, as it was the case with Maimonides's conversion, there would be no basis for dispute now.

Pecher 19:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First thing's first, we must all be civil. Language like "Islamophobe" is unacceptable. Additionally, Mediation Cabal is not about user conduct, it is only about article content. The point of my presence as a mediator is to enforce Misplaced Pages policy while you two work out, amongst yourselves, what the ideal article content is. This includes but is not limited to reminding everyone to be civil, being sure that all proposed additions meet WP:V, etc.

And as for the heart of the matter, from now on, I want to see only verifiable and citable statements. I want to remind everyone that can't simply delete a relevant, verifiable citation just because you disagree with it. You'd have to find another relevant, verifiable citation to refute it. And of course, copyright violation by merely copying over contents from another website is strictly prohibited. I can help you guys decide which sites are acceptable for use as sources too, if you have any questions. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it all started with Infidel article, where there were two people, Pecher & Mikexx . AS Pecher claimed, Kafir includes all non-Muslims. I told him to read People of the book , Ahl al-Fatrah & Kafir article where it was clearly stated that People who didnt get any information about Islam are Ahl al-Fatrah , whereas Jews , Christians & Zoarasterans are People of the book . Both of them arnt included in the Definition of Kafir . But he wouldnt listen . The infidsel articvle still says that Kafir includes all non-muslims . He tried to push the same POV on Kafir article , where I had given him verses from Quran that clearly say that Kafir are among people of the book , not all people of the book . He also tried to remove the etymology section from there saying it wasent relevent ( if that isnt relevent , then what is ) He & Ramallite had a huge discussion on this issue , when the article clearly says everything in a very NPOV way , there was no point for these kind of revert wars . Mikexx also gave him a barn star for what he calls "poop scooping on Infidel article" .

Next he started editing Dhimmi & Jizya articles , articles which were fairly stable for a long period of time . Previously the articles were written in a POV manner , After Pecher's edits , it seemed like muslims were cannibals . In the very begining , I asked him to start a new section named "Critical Views" or "Non-muslim opinions" . But the problem here is that he considers claims made by Bat yeor & Lewis as facts proven beyond doubt , while Yousuf Zarkawi & Jamal Badavi , people who have degrees in Islam are "Islamist apologist" to him . The whole Dhimmi article at the moment is filled with nothing else but hate mongering . Its all claims , cited as facts . It doesnt say a single word about what Islam says about Dhimmis . Or what good Islam did to them . I had added a section about Death penelty to dhimmis , that came from scholars , backed with Hadeeth , he also reverted it . To Jizya article I had added a section about reasons behind Jizya & exemptions from Jizya, he removed it too . When we have a criticism section , why cant we have a reasons section .

Next came People of the book , where he says that four Quranic verses & a para that says that they were some times treated in a good way & some times in a bad way is "factually inaccurate"

In the end comes Rules of war in Islam . Now the article in its previous version had Quranic verses & Hadeeth , & everything came from scholars . He reverted whole quotes from Quran & hadeeth & left only the quotes from critics , calling everything else Islamist propaganda . For some unknown reasons he removed whole sections regarding treatment of POW , that had loads of Quranic verses & hadith , & left what suited his POV .Its rules of war in Islam backed with Quran & hadeeth , what is propaganda in it ? WE can always have a section about if these rules weren’t always followed . But whats the popint of reverting the whole article ?

I tried to start discussion with him in the very begining , his answers were "Just like a sharia court, Farhansher does not admit non-Muslim testimony" & "Al-Jazeera's anti-Semitic fabrications cited above belong to the same cesspool of bigoted hateful balderdash as fake Talmudic quotes do". After these replies, there was no point of discussion.

Now coming to the questions raised by Pecher . I asked him to add his material in a section rather then writing the whole article based on critics of Islam like Bat yeor . He wants to have only his version b/c the rest is Islamist Propaganda to him . About the insersions , I cant change Quranic verses , I cant change quotes/hadith, the rest can obviously be changed , there was no need to revert the whole article that didnt suit his POV. Regarding sources , each & every thing has been sourced ( see the links ). Statments like "Just like a sharia court, Farhansher does not admit non-Muslim testimony" are not only uncivil , they say a lot about the person's psyche , & what he is trying to do . You cant start a discussion when faced by "Another frequently heard propaganda stunt is that dhimmis were "exempted" from military service" kind of statments. Answers to first three questions can be found in the links , the forth one , I cant say anything about that . Quranic verses that were very obvious were deleted by pecher . These are the verses that are believed by everybody , while scholars arnt . A particular scholar is followed by some people , not all muslims . You cant quote a para from a book & say that it is an unchangable part of Sharia , & everybody believes in it .

My point here is very simple , we cant have an article that is totally based on works of critics , & Bat yeor like people . And remove everything from Quran, Sunnah, hadeeth & verifiable authentic Islamic scholars .

By the way, I am on wiki vacations right now , I would have preferred if all this started a week later . F.a.y. 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Jizya and Rules of war in Islam were copy-paste insertions of material from IslamOnline.net and wholesale deletions of much sourced and resonable material. Please explain why you view IslamOnline as a reliable source per WP:RS and why you deleted what you deleted. Pecher 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider Islamonline as a reliable source because the site is run by authentic & verifiable scholars with degrees in Islam . And I had to remove your sourced material bacause you were confusing claims with proven facts . And your tone was too Anti-Islam , clearly not NPOV .F.a.y. 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have only followed Dhimmi, and have not edited the article, limiting myself to the talk page. I'm optimistic about Dhimmi. The two versions are not that far apart, and have been getting closer in the last few days. If everyone takes it slowly and works things out on the talk page first, there's every chance that the article will develop into something acceptable to most of us. The editors, I think, agree on the basics about presenting both sides with citations. Quotes from the Quran are important, and need to be supported by citations to specific scholars who have interpreted them. Tom Harrison 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Its better to to cite scholars who interpreted them , but it isnt always necessary . Infact when the verses are of clear meaning, you dont need any interpretation in the first place . F.a.y. 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is the other way around: one can do without Qur'anic quotes, but one can never do without commentary from Muslim scholars. What is written in Qur'an is important, of course, but the most important thing is how Islamic scholars have agreed to interpret what's written in Qur'an and in the hadith. The meaning of verses may be unclear, different verses are often contradictory: these problems must be addressed somehow, and that's what the commentary is for. Finally, we have thousands of hadith, which must be interpreted too, both on standalone basis and in conjunction with Qur'an. Whenever we try to infer some meaning from QUr'an directly, we essentially do the Islamic legal reasoning; however, we should never do it because we are not Muslim scholars. In a nutshell, if we want to know how Islamic law views a certain matter, we must consult Islamic scholars, not the Qur'an. Pecher 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with Farhansher. The Hadiths are authentic ONLY IF the Quran is NOT clear on a matter. That is, if some Hadiths contradict Quran, one should go for the Quranic one. I expect one should be able to figure out the basic definitions only based on the Quran. I don't agree that "different verses are often contradictory". Regarding Pecher’s last sentence, I would say, were there only one view shared by Islamic scholars, I would have agreed that we must consult Islamic scholars, not the Qur'an. I don't agree that we should not read Quran and learn from it. However, we should be very caution when we want to interpret it. It is dangerous to self-interpret the Quran. I honestly don't know where the exact boundaries are, but of course, saying that "we must consult Islamic scholars, not the Qur'an" is not a 100% correct sentence to my mind. The Quran is supposed to be sent to all people, not the Islamic scholars.--Aminz 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point to bear in mind is, if you can cite verses from the Quran, so can all the other editors, Muslim or not. Tom Harrison 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Hadiths are authentic ONLY IF the Quran is NOT clear on a matter. That is, if some Hadiths contradict Quran, one should go for the Quranic one." Aminz, what you're trying to do here is ijtihad, i.e. Islamic legal reasoning. However, I'm afraid that neither, nor any other editor here is qualified to perform this sort of reasoning. This is the domain of Islamic scholars, and we must rely on their opinions in matters of Islamic law. The fact that on certain matters Islamic scholars may have different opinios does not disqualify them from being quoted. On the contrary, if even Islamic scholars, who interpret sacred Muslim texts for a living, cannot come to an agreement on some issues, how would you expect all of our readers to arrive at the same interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith? If there are differing opinions among scholars, both the majority and significant minority opinions must be cited as per WP:NOR; it is not acceptable to cite neither. Pecher 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, what I said is not ijtihad. If I want to put it confidently, I should say I am sure that "majority of present shia scholars" think in this way. There is an authentic Hadith to them which asks them to reject all the Hadiths that are in contradiction with Qur'an. As I said, I agree that self-interpretation is forbidden; but there are certain boundaries to it that I am not exactly aware of. I know for example, that if someone is quite knowledgeable about something, then he must do "ijtihad" in that case; otherwise he must do "taqlid"(imitation). Now, regarding your argument, of course if some scholar has said something, we can quote from him. We can also quote the relevant Quranic verses and different interpretations on them. I think there is nothing wrong with having tons of quotes as long as they do not persuade the reader to a particular position AND as long as they are not selectively chosen. --Aminz 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have not acted with civility toward Pecher. The reason that I didn't provide any references was that it was clear to me that people of the book are not unclean. I thought it is obvious. That was what I learned in school. But anyway, I did a little bit research and realized that I was sort of right and sort of wrong. According to one website the view of the majority of shia scholars regarding this issue has been changed over time. The majority of present shia scholars consider people of the book to be clean(pak)

See for example

Some scholars such as Ayatullah Khui (RA) have deemed it as an obligatory precautionary measure, in which case one can always revert back to another scholar who allows the People of the Book to be considered Paak.

Ayatullah Sistani states that "As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. However, it is better to avoid them."

Some famous modern shia scholars such as Allameh Mohammad Taghi Jafari have questioned the authenticity of the whole matter. They claim that the meaning of the word "najis" has been changed over time. They claim that the shia scholars have re-interpreted the relevant Quranic verse based on a new definition of the word "najis" (that is the problem of generalizing the meaning of some word over time.) I was not able to find any reference for this on the internet, so you don't have to believe me.

I apologize again. I honestly didn’t know (and wasn’t able to guess) that in the past the majority of the shia scholars have had different views.

But still I believe that the sentence should be revised since it does not mention that there are many modern scholars who do not believe that people of the book are najis. Thanks --Aminz 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see how websites cited here qualify as per WP:RS. Al-Islam.org might indeed be popular, but it certainly isn't a reliable source as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. However, if there is indeed such a controversy, it might be sourced to reliable published sources. Pecher 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I witnessed Farhansher trying to insert POV wording into Kafir earlier today as well. I think there may be a larger problem here, as I have noticed a small group of editors who seem to consistently and in POV manner revert any and all changes to articles like Muhammad, Kafir, and Dhimmi. Fixislam 23:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that Fixislam is believed to be a sock-puppet of several other usernames who give trouble on Islam-related articles, see its userpage. --Zero 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If the main issue of contention here is whether IslamOnline is a reliable source, we might need to escalate this up the chain a bit. I know you can have a Request for Comment on that issue. That would get some useful feedback that would help you to determine if it's an appropriate site. In the meantime, work on resolving the other issues. --Cyde Weys 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The site is run by prominent Islamic scholars from all over the world , & one of the most prominent Islamic sites on the net right now. See the list of Muftis . If Al-Azhar House of Fatwa , Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America , European Council for Fatwa and Research , Saudi House of Fatwa , Fiqh Council of North America & names like Jamal Badawi (professor at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) & Yusuf Qaradawi (head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR)and the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars ) arnt reliable , & Bat yeor styled controversial activists like , I think Jimbo Wales should have a disclaimer on WP's main page saying "WP isnt reliable for any thing regarding Islam , since we only consider hatemongerers reliable, proceed at your own risk". People like Bat yeor dont define Islam , they arnt even factually accurate ( I remember reading her articles some where on how Islam commands muslims to lie, it was fun reading her hasty generalised conclusions ). So how does she becomes reliable , & why the whole article should be based on her claims , cited as proven facts . F.a.y. 12:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Small problems with your statements follow. First, the fundamentalist clerics DO interpret koran and hadith as requiring muslims to lie if telling the truth would portray Islam or Muhammad in a negative light. Second, people like Bat Yeor are better suited to discuss Islam as outside observers, than fundamentalists like yourself who have a stated goal of portraying it in the best possible light and denying that it has ever done any wrong. Islamonline.net is a great resource for showing how perverted Islam has become, but it is not at all reliable for factual information on anything other than showing how backwards the fundamentalist interpretations of our faith are. Fixislam 15:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. No, I don't agree. Telling lie is a GREAT sin. I am a Muslim and this statement seems too foreign to me (though I don’t claim that I don’t lie but I claim that I have never lied because of being Muslim). Personally, maybe if someone wants to kill me, I may tell lie and then religiously justify it for myself (of course if that lie does not harm other people) but never for the purposes that you mentioned. 2. It is interesting that outside observers tell Muslims what that they don't know :) I swear that it was my first time hearing that some interpret Quran and Hadith in the way Fixislam said. I would be thankful if Fixislam show me one Qur'anic verse. --Aminz 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't http://www.lankarani.org/eng/tal/tawdhih-al-masael/nejasat08.htm a reliable source? --Aminz 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? What you linked is just some random website. Verifiable or reliable implies it is backed up by something with reputation. Maybe if it was done by a noted Islamic Foundation or, even better, an unbiased history foundation. --Cyde Weys 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.lankarani.org/ is the official website of one of the famous Shia jurists. I have not read WP:RS but my common sense tells me that this website is reliable. Isn't it?--Aminz 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani? Tom Harrison 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is the official website of Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani. --Aminz 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

On Pecher's talk page, I tried to clarify a remark I made above. I think the Quran in this context should be treated like a primary source. We should not try to interpret it ourselves, or even try to identify which passages are relavent. It seems to me that would be original research. If we want to know about Islam, we should cite the opinion of reptuable scholars, not cite the Quran directly. If we are to be allowed to interpret the Quran directly for ourselves, and say what it requires of Muslims, then we are all going to be doing that, not just the Muslim editors. I do not expect that Farhansher, for example, would find that acceptable. Tom Harrison 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree. If debate devolves into a quest to find a scholar to say X, Y, or Z then you'll have no luck, because the nature of things is that you can find an "Islamic Scholar" to say just about anything you want them to say, and in the case of many of them, you'll find that what they publish in foreign languages and what they publish in Arabic are very different things indeed. All you do by restricting the debate to "scholar says this" and "scholar says that" is enable people to hide the source of the problem, which is the things that should never have been in Quran in the first place and were put there either by others who rewrote the book, or by Muhammad himself that were not given to him but he simply made up. Fixislam 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These are all good and valid points, but I think we have ways of dealing with this sort of things on Misplaced Pages. Per WP:NPOV, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages". Thus, even if someone has been able to dig up a scholarly opinion that suits his view, this opinion does not qualify for Misplaced Pages unless one can prove that the scholar in question has a large following. This point is especially applicable to modern scholars, whose authority has not withstood the test of time yet, and even more to English-language websites that publish ostensibly "scholarly" opinions because the latter certainly do not qualify as reliable sources as per WP:RS. This point is applicable even to websites maintained by Islamic scholars themselves because per WP:V, self-published sources, like websites, when published by a "professional researcher in a relevant field... n some cases, ... may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." In other words, quotes directly from a scholar's website are not acceptable unless these quotes cannot be found in another source that meets the requirements of WP:RS. I don't mind at all citing Quran and hadith, as long as we cite both the Quranic verse or the hadith and the scholars' interpretation of them. In some cases, we indeed should cite several opinions, for example, when different schools of Islamic law disagree among themselves. Pecher 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

How are things going now, guys? Getting closer to a consensus? Remember, I'm just the mediator. I'm watching this page regularly to make sure that discussions are ongoing in a productive and civil manner. I'm staying as hands-off as possible because the only people who can really solve this are you guys. Of course, if you have any questions of me, go ahead and ask them, and I'll try my best to answer. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not optimistic. Can we make two articles dhimmi 1 and dhimmi 2 instead of one article? --Aminz 02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's absolutely forbidden per WP:POVFORK. What's the reasoning behind wanting to have two sets of articles? Do you think some editors want to make them entirely critical and others want to base them entirely on the Quran and interpretations of the Quran? Obviously, the end solution lies somewhere inbetween. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't want to blame anyone for doing pov work. As I think I am right, others think they are right. I just feel that our discussion will end as many religious conversations end. We can present evidences here, but we will not be able to agree on the weights that should be assigned to the evidences. Both parties will end the discussion without anyone being convinced. WP is good in the sense that we can present all the evidences, but, even the way we want to present the evidences is debatable. But all these does not mean we should not continue discussion. --Aminz 06:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a religious argument though. We're merely trying to write an NPOV encyclopedia article. I'm not expecting anyone to come away from this "convinced" in any matter — I am expecting people to reach a consensus on the state of the articles in question. Misplaced Pages has had to deal with many articles more contentious than this one, so you shouldn't be feeling pessimistic. We will resolve this. Generally the formula goes something like, "Source A claims X. Source B claims Y." In this case Source A would be the Quran and Islamic ayatollahs and Source B would be other historians and scholars. --Cyde Weys 06:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Aminz, imagine that the article as it is now is dhimmi 1 and that your ideal article is dhimmi 2. Think of what you would like to see on dhimmi 2. Then add it to dhimmi 1 provided that your edits meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V etc. Pecher 20:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a ritual purity

Here is the diff between Aminz' and Pecher's versions. How about some compromise language:

Shi'a Islam devotes much attention to the the issues of ritual purity — tahara. Shi'a jurists in the past deemed non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis — so that certain physical contact with them or things they touched would require Shi'as to wash themselves before doing regular prayers. While some Shia jurists maintain this view{{citation}}, many present Shia jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani deem Jews and Christians to be ritually clean .

In Persia, where Shi'ism is dominant, these beliefs brought about restrictions aimed at limiting physical contact between Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis had their own public baths and were not allowed to attend public baths with Muslims; they were also not allowed to go outside in rain or snow, ostensibly because some impurity could be washed from them onto a Muslim. This is no longer the case, since the ruling of (emminent jurist) in (some year){{citation}}.

Of course I've left for someone else the hard work of finding appropriate citations, but maybe this can be a starting point. I do think we are making progress. Tom Harrison 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good. I can cite from the constitutional law of Iran to show that there is no restriction on Non-Muslims for staying at home when it is raining. This seems very weird if it wants to be the case. Actually, I wanted to discuss the last sentence of the paragraph. I have doubts that this law has been ever enforced; because it seems funny and impractical; but I should find a reference for this first. I think the true, important criticism that needs to be added to this article is Persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran. Thanks --Aminz 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"This is no longer the case, since the ruling of (emminent jurist)" This is indeed no longer the case, but for a different reason. Dhimma was abolished in Muslim countries in the 19th and 20th century in the course of Westernizing reforms, such as Tanzimat, or thanks to the European colonialism. The deficiency of the article, as it is now, is that it does not yet have the long-intended section "Abolition of dhimma" from which it would be clear that the practical aspects of dhimma are no longer relevant. Pecher 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they Shia scholars jurists their opinion based on what you said. First of all, Tanzimat occured from 1839 to 1876 in Ottoman Empire, and not in Iran. The opinion of Shia scholars has changed much later than 1876.--Aminz 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, I wan't specific enough. Actually, I meant that dhimma was abolished in natonal legal codes, which ceased to be based on sharia. Of course, the opinions of Islamic legal scholars remained unaffected by the Westernizing reforms. Pecher 12:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree to the formulations "Shi'a jurists in the past deemed non-Muslims to be ritually impure" and "many present Shia jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani deem Jews and Christians to be ritually clean" because to say so would be original research. What we have is Lewis and Bat Ye'or, who cite classical Shi'a scholars and say that all non-Muslims are ritually unclean, on the one hand and a quote from Fazel Lankarani saying that Jews and Chritians are ritually clean on the other hand. It would be original research to deduce from here that in the past Shi's jurists said one thing and now they say something else because we have no sources saying precisely that. Also, Lankarani appears to be the only modern Shi'a scholar holding such views. For these reasons, I believe that the best way out would be to stick to my version, i.e. to cite Lanakarani's opinion in a footnote. Pecher 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's be precise then. What we have are the following facts: 1. Lewis and/or Bat Ye'or say that shi'a scholars deem non-Muslims to be ritually unclean. (There is no mention that the classic scholars believe in that; or they traditionally did that, or they did that in the past) 2. A quote from Fazel Lankarani saying that Jews and Christians are ritually clean (and I can find more jurist who say the same thing) ; Now, These two contradict each other. Why? Because Pecher asked me to find references for my claim. Here is my suggestion:

We should say: According to Lewis/ Bat Ye'or, "Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis — so that contact with them defiles a Muslim." However several shia jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani deem Jews and Christians to be ritually clean By doing this we have reported both views and we have left the reader to solve the contradiction for himself/herself. And finally we have not mentioned that the idea has changed over time. (i.e. instead of saying "several present shis jurist ..." we simply said "several shia jurist...") We are exactly reporting the facts. i.e. we do no original research.

And finally, Bat Ye'or is controversial, when something is quoted from him, we should mention the it is Bat Ye'or who makes such an statement. Moreover, we should check if Bat Ye'or is a critical of Islam or not. If yes, we should say critics such as Bat Ye'or say ... --Aminz 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel there is any need to attribute each and every statement in the article, but if we do attribute the view on ritual impurity of Jews and Christians, then we must attribute it to al-Hilli, not Bernard Lewis. In this case, the footnote may read: "Al-Hilli Kitab Shara'i al-Islam, quoted in Lewis (1984), pp. 33–34. Fazel Lankarani considers Jews and Christians to be ritually pure". It is not appropriate to put Lankarani and al-Hilli together in the body of the article because al-Hilli is a classical and one of the most influential Shi'a scholars of all times, while Lankarani is a modern scholar and seems to be the only one holding such views. As it was pointed out above, al-Sistani, for example, does not share Lankarani's views. Pecher 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Al-Helli is one of the most influential Shi'a scholars of all times. My whole point is to show that the view of Shia scholars has been changed over time. That's it. We can quote from both Al-Helli and Lankarani to show this. Why should we mention one view in the article and the other one in the footnotes? I think it would be original research to judge among shia scholars. Lankarani or al-Sistani or other scholars are fully aware of the opinion of other shia scholars. And finally, al-Sistani does not state that people of the book are ritually unclean! He says that it is a matter of precaution. The matter of precaution is a technical term which means that the jurist has not found enough evidences for the truth of the matter; but as a matter of precaution recommends it; however one can always revert the matter to any jurist who has a fixed view. --Aminz 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to put to rest forever the issue of Bat Ye'or's scholarly credibility, which was raised above and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. I saw her (not him) being called "bigoted lunatic", "flat-earth theorists" and what not. Of course, none of such labels stuck to her is true, for she is undoubtedly one of the leading scholars in the field. I have gathered reviews of her books User:Pecher/The Dhimmi - The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam and User:Pecher/The Decline - The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Her books were reviewed by highly influential scholars, like Martin Gilbert or William Montgomery Watt; Bernard Lewis himself referenced The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam in his overview of the existing scholarship of the fate of Jews and Christians under Islam in his book Jews of Islam (pp. 192-193). As you can see, most reviews are very positive: that The Dhimmi "supersedes A.S. Tritton’s The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects and Norman Stillman’s ... The Jews of Arab Lands" both of which were considered to be standard references is probably the highest praise one could hope for in 1980s. Pecher 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with quoting something from her. We want to see if whatever she says is a fact or not. I would like to see if other scholars in the field take her quotes as Facts or as her Opinions. Let's Assume that there is at least one scholar who does not agree with her on at least one matter. Then for every quote of her that wanted to be written as a fact, one needs to pick up all the other scholars, one by one, and show that their opinion is the same. That will be a pretty hard work to do. And moreover it is considered an original research. Since we have decided not to do any original researchs here, I only need to show that Bat Ye'or is controversial on at least one of her opinions. I think this can be easily shown. --Aminz 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

By showing that a scholar is "controversial on at least one of her opinions", you can dismiss everyone in the field of social sciences because each and every social science scholar is "controversial" in at least one opinion. To continue with your example, we cannot rely on Lanakrani at all because al-Hilli and al-Sistani disagree with him. Your logic also creates a vicious circle becuase if a certain scholar disagrees with Bat Ye'or, then the disagreement disqualifies both her and the disagreeing scholar. In the end, we will only be allowe to write only on those matters on which all scholars agree, which disqualifies a huge number of subjects from Misplaced Pages. By this logic, we would not be able to write articles on subjects, like climate change at all. Pecher 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not agree with your sentence: "we cannot rely on Lanakrani at all because al-Hilli and al-Sistani disagree with him." since 1. al-Sistani also disagrees with al-Hilli and many past jurists. 2. There are millions of shia's who have already relied on Lankarani! What does it mean that we can not rely on Lankarani? 3. The shia jurist don't claim that what they think is exactly what Islam says. They just believe that it is their understanding of Islam. There is a difference between our understanding of the text and the text itself; likewise there is a difference between quotes and facts 4. As you asked us not to do any original research, please find a reliable link which says compares al-Hilli with Lankarani. 5. Lankarani is not the only famous jurist who makes such a claim.

Now, as you said “every social science scholar is "controversial" in at least one opinion.” That’s true of course, but my conclusion was not to dismiss the scholar but to rather quote from them. The scholars don’t claim that they are prophets and that whatever they say is a fact. Instead of writing “X is so”, we should write “Y says X is so”. Unless we know that “All the scholars say that X is so”, we should not write “X is so”. Assuming that we don’t want to do ANY original research, we would not be able to understand if “All the scholars say that X is so”? Moreover, in many cases, there is not complete consensus among scholars. In any case, saying “Y says X is so” leaves the opportunity for other possible ideas to be included. If one is sure that “All the scholars say that X is so”, there will be no worry of writing the matter as a quote (since no body can provide other quotes against it). I don’t think I am asking much. Finally regarding your sentence “In the end, we will only be allowed to write only on those matters on which all scholars agree” 1. If ALL the scholars do agree on what is written in the dhimmi and kafir articles, then I wonder what we are discussing things here. 2. We should not write articles about the Bible because many famous scholars have serious doubts about the Bible and have rejected it. 3. Why can't we simply say that "source A says so" "source B says so" ... --Aminz 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been said many times before that there is no need to attribute each and every statement to a specific source. We have references in place so that readers can easily check what comes from where. The only instance where attribution within the body of the article may be required is when we have controversy over a specific issue. Pecher 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, You have said many times before that :"there is no need to attribute each and every statement to a specific source..." and I have also said many times before that I can not agree with you. I personally never check the references when I read an article. I usually don't read the articles to their end. But I do agree that "The only instance where attribution within the body of the article may be required is when we have controversy over a specific issue." But what is the definition of controversy? Wasn't the "Lankarani issue" a controversy? My understanding was that you said that it is original research to define this as a controversial issue. Yes, I may not be able to find a ‘’Reliable’’ reference that explicitly says that it is a controversy. But on the other hand it is not costly to quote something rather than writing it as a fact when something seems to be controversial. I think when one asks some sentence to be referenced; this provides enough evidences that the matter is suspicious to be controversial. I think the one who insists that the matter should not be written as a fact has the responsibility to show that the matter is not controversial. But then this may include original research which is forbidden here. So the only way to prove it is to find some scholar who says that the matter is not controversial; but then that quote itself may be disputed by others. So one should find another quote saying that that quote is not disputed by others and … we have a cycle here. Thus, my conclusion is that when "one claims that some matter is controversial." there is no way to prove that it is not the case, without doing original research and without existence of minimal trust between the two parties. Since we are forbidden of doing original researches here, the logical conclusion is that everything disputed by any one of us should be referenced.--Aminz 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the problem with attributing the dominant opinion to al-Hilli and Lanakrani's opinion to Lanakarani, as I have suggested? Pecher 12:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the specific issue of how we should write the shia section: 1. I don't believe that using the word dominant is proper since it may change over time. 2. I don't really know and have no evidence to attribute the first opinion to al-Hilli. We can say scholars such as al-Hilli say that but more evidence is required to give the whole credit to al-Hilli. 3. The same thing for Lankarani. How was Tom's suggestion?

I would like to also get your feedback for the above argument. I wanted to prove that "when "one claims that some matter is controversial." there is no way to prove that it is not the case, without doing original research and without existence of minimal trust between the two parties. Since we are forbidden of doing original researches here, the logical conclusion is that everything disputed by any one of us should be referenced." Thanks --Aminz 18:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles

I have readded the Exemptions & Reasons sections to Jizya article , mainly because these are very important to understand the whole concept of the matter . They were removed for some unknown reasons without giving any reason .

Rules of war in Islam has also been reverted . Nobody gave any reason for deleting whole sourced article when its backed with Quran & Hadeeth . If its copyright violation ( that I dont think it is ) then it can always be reworded .

I have reverted Dhimmi article . Sorry for reverting all those edits , but the article as it stood , its impossible to make it NPOV no matter how much one tries , it wil still remain something like Look how those barbaric muslims treated humans. The reasonable edits can obviously come back . It would be better to add the claims in a separate section rather then making the article look like a piece of Anti-Islam rant , that foes on & on without even giving any importance to muslim views .

Also it would be better to start a history section & a criticism section & add all the material there . The article is supposed to be about Dhimmi ststus as it was practiced by muslims , not about how people in the 20th century have criticised it . F.a.y. 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You are doing wholesale reverts to unspecified versions allegedly done by one unspecified "vandal", undoing edits by others presumably not meant to be deleted. You'll have to ressort to civil behaviour, which implies that you don't revert disregarding contributions by Ian Pitchford, Bless sins, and me. Probably we're not your main opponents. Even if we where, you are to reach consensus or mediation on talk pages instead of engaging in edit wars. Further, you are not to call editors vandals when actually the content is in dispute. Check Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for definitions. Else, if you earnestly think that vandalism applies, it'd be easy to have the editors of your disliking blocked or reprimanded. --tickle me 16:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well ofcourse I agree , what I consider vandalism is this particular edit . I agree with no PBUH policy . Regarding Ian Pitchford's edits , the verses & ahadeeth , they can always be readded . The POW has still got a section . There is no possible reson for the contents being disputed , other then the fact that one particular person doesent consider any thing that comes from muslim scholars as authentic . F.a.y. 17:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What you just linked isn't vandalism. Please see WP:VAND for a definition of vandalism. It is considered uncivil to attack other editors by calling their edits "vandalism" when in fact it is a legitimate content dispute. --Cyde Weys 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Farhansher, I think that revert of Dhimmi was inappropriate and unwise. It undoes a lot of people's work, and risks starting up the revert war again. How far back did you go? How many people's work did you undo? And then to say, "Well, people can type in again the productive work that they have done," is just antagonistic. At the very least, it is your responsibility to re-do the work you have undone. Mediation is in progress and several editors are moving forward productively, if slowly. Reverting at this point is inconsiderate of others, and risks causing disruption. Tom Harrison 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that what to revert on Dhimmi page & what not to . I understand it undoes a lot of people's work . You know all of this started when one person suddenly made huge changes to an article tat was NPOV & stable , & started calling everything else "Islamist propaganda". Wasent it other people's job to try to see the differnece b/w the different versions before starting editing on it . Can that version be made NPOV???.... I'll try to summrise what was reverted . But even then it will get reverted to the very same Anti-Islam version , you know it very well . F.a.y. 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, Please read my previous edits before this one. I think the revert of Dhimmi was quite appropriate and wise since it does not undo a lot of people's work, they are still there in the history. The impression that I get from your position is that you are supporting Pecher's edit as a true edit by default. I don't think at all with your sentence that "At the very least, it is your responsibility to re-do the work you have undone." and moreover I think if I were Farhansher, I was not happy with your judgment. --Aminz 10:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz(cc Farhansher): I understand your position, and I probably objected to Farhansher's revert with more intensity than was necessary. My words could have been better-chosen to reduce tension. I stand by the substance of my comment - that it is inappropriate to do a large-scale revert while mediation is in progress. Tom Harrison 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Farhansher, I apply the term "Islamist propaganda" only to IslamOnline from whcih you do wholesale copy-paste insertions into Jizya and Rules of war in Islam. That the description is accurate must be clear to anyone reading passages like "Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities." Actually, if you do compare Dhimmi before a major revision and after it, you will notice that the major difference is that the latter version is sourced and expanded. All the major restrictions on dhimmis that are mentioned now were mentioned in the earlier version too. Furthermore, some of the restrictions mentioned in the early version, such as prohibtion on bearing arms or from holding public office, are not in the current version of the article (not yet at least). Such considerations make it even more baffling why you choose to consistently revert sourced material. Pecher 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I have readded the material that got deleted in Rules of war in Islam . In Jizyah I have changed definition to legal commentary (thats what it really is), & readded exemptions & reasons for reasons discussed above . Now coming back to dhimmi article , all the criticism ( that means all the current article ) needs to be shortened . Otherwise it will be better to rename it to criticism of Jizya. F.a.y. 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop copy-pasting wholesale material from other sites? That is simply not allowed. And you shouldn't just be rephrasing content from another webpage; you should use lots of different sources. There is no single authority on any issue. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, would you please justify your above claim for me? I think it is definitely fine to quote from a particular source as much as we want. Didn’t Pecher quote from particular scholars? I would like to know why you didn’t ask him to reduce the number of his quotes. It is clear to me that many parts of the dhimmi article such as the title "Humiliation of dhimmis" is anti-islamic POV. It should read "Alleged Humiliation of dhimmis". The article says that Muslims believe that "humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will." THESE are all anti islamic POV to my mind. I believe it should read "According to some critics such as ... it is so". I am really amazed how these things seems NPOV. I ask why you guys attack Farhansher for reverting the article? I think it was pecher who was supposed to discuss his changes at the first place before applying them. Why don't we revert back the article to its previous version and then discuss about Pecher's edits one by one? Why should it be in the other way? I think while the Mediation is going on, we should sometimes post the Farhansher version of the articles and sometimes the Pecher's version of the article. Since the Pecher's edit has been posted for awhile, we should now post the Farhansher's version of the article and keep it for awhile. How is that?--Aminz 07:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And to everyone involved: you need to talk over the issues in here before you perform major edits. There should be no major reversions at all. Farhansher, what specifically about the articles in question do you think should be changed? I want you to quote specific passages and your suggested improvements and we will go over them one by one. Ditto for anyone else. --Cyde Weys 03:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, this position is not fair because it assumes that Pecher's edit is by default true and Farhansher needs to argue against it. We can revert the article back to its original form which was stable for awhile and ask: "Pecher, what specifically about the articles in question do you think should be changed?" --Aminz 10:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I'd like to hear from both sides justifying each difference. --Cyde Weys 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But what about posting the Farhansher's version of the article. The mediation started at 02/27 which is one month ago and Pecher's edit was posted for around one month. We should now post the Farhansher's version of the article for around one month. If there is no objection, i'll go ahead and post that on. --Aminz 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

it might be a good idea to start with the other side saying what the specific differences are. Pecher 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to start with each part of the article separately. For example, we can start with the introduction and discuss it. Both parties can then present their ideas simultaneously. --Aminz 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Can I suggest that we not start with the introduction, but rather with 'Religious aspects'? We could then do 'Legal aspects', and so on, and then write the introduction last. We would be able to start small, with narrow and specific issues, and the introduction would better reflect what we were able agree to in the rest of the article. Tom Harrison 00:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, It is a better idea to start with 'Religious aspects' rather than introduction. Introduction should be discussed at the end since it is supposed to summarize the whole article. I hope that all the people involved will be available when we are discussing the issues. I have not heard from Farhansher and Palmiro for awhile. One important point: Like every scientific theory that must provides tests of falsification, we should design ways for our ideas represented in the article to be falsified. The article should not be written in a way that makes it hesitant of accepting new ideas. Thanks --Aminz 00:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I don't understand. Did you revert the article? Is that something most of us support? I don't think that's a useful way to proceed, and I hope I didn't give any impression to the contrary. Tom Harrison 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, please read my note above. While the mediation is going on, we should post pecher's edit half of the times, and Farhansher's edit rest half of the time. Once we have agreed on some point, we can modify the article, but before that, it is fair to share time between the two versions. Can I post Farhansher's edit now? --Aminz 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious, but let's hear what people think of it. I'll check back in the morning. Tom Harrison 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to this proposal in the strongest terms possible: the idea is even worse than POV-forking. Posting different versions at different times means fooling our readers who will get different information depending on when they log on. By doing so, we will pour much fuel on the fire of Misplaced Pages's criticism that the articles are unstable and you are never sure what you will see. People will stop linking to Misplaced Pages because you cannot link to a web page, which at different times says different things on the same subject. Pecher 13:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that we could set up a workshop area, maybe as a subpage of this page, with the different versions there. I have no experience with that, and would be inclined to leave it up to our moderator. I don't think rotating versions in the main encyclopedia is a good idea, though I understand now what Aminz wanted to do, and his intentions are good. Tom Harrison 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The workshop area is a good idea if we could set up. I also see Pecher's point. So, I have a simple suggestion for him which is very easy to do and also avoids all the problems mentioned by him. Let's post Farhansher's version and keep it until the mediation is going on. The article will then be stable. That version was of course stable for a long time. Any objection? --Aminz 18:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The objection is that in so doing we will delete tons of sourced material, which is an actionable offense in Misplaced Pages. Pecher 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggested to do it temporarily as long as the mediation is going on. --Aminz 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a workshop is probably the best idea. The workshop will be setup at Talk:Rules of war in Islam/Workshop; just create that page and get to work. And I agree, alternating which version of the page is displayed isn't a good idea. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then how the workshop will be linked to the article? It should specify at the beginning that there are two versions of the article which are both under discussion. I know it is arguable as which version should be posted where, but I'll take it easy (if Farhansher agrees). I made the suggestion for the following reasons 1. I felt that Farhansher is not properly understood. I see that the Muslim editors leave here one by one 2. My discussion with pecher was to change some passage in his edit. It really makes me tired and I don't see enough progress. I was previously working on the criticism of Islam article together with Yid613. We often had conflicts but I was enjoying our progress. Here, we started with a short passage and we are still discussing it there after a long time. I will not be able to do this for every passage of the article of course. So, I thought either I should give up the discussion or get into the defensive position. It is always much easier to defense something rather than attack something. e.g. you can always revert the edits in the first place; the other party has the hard time to find reliable references and even then how to write the thing can be discussed and … So, this issue is also practically important for me. --Aminz 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could link to the workshop from a notice at the top of the article talk page. I understand your desire to keep things moving. Would a schedule be useful? Tom Harrison 21:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand that any kind of posting two versions of the article at the same time is not a good idea. It is not good for wikipedia. The best suggestion was alternating between the two versions which you guys didn't like. It was also followed by a very simple suggestion, but it was not accepted. I think I have already written what I was needed to write both here and in the "shia ritual" part. That was my responsibility. The rest is your guy’s responsibility if you find any truth in my arguments. --Aminz 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry for late reply , I have broken my forearm...doesent feel good typing with one hand . Coming back to th questions . Its not a copy paste , since most of it is Quranic verses & hadith , it cant be changed . Then its backedup with history . nobody can simply cal it copy paste & remove all relevent info . There must be some good reason for doing so. Its impossible to be specfic about the anti islam version of dhimmi article the way it is . its a classic example of hatemongering & misinformation . Even funnier that the person who added all that propaganda in the article is insisting to cite all those quotes as proven facts , at the same time he refers to the other opinions as islamist propaganda .

I have already rationally proved in my discussion with pecher in the "shia ritual" part that (when "one claims that some matter is controversial." there is no way to prove that it is not the case and that everything disputed by any one of us should be quoted. and not written as a fact.) --Aminz 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyways I would love to hear some good reasons why two sections were removed from jizya & why rules of war in islam was reverted when it had all the material in mine & pecher's version . To everyone editing pecher's version of articles, you are spending your time on version whose factual accuracy is disputed . The more you edit it , the more you are legitimising Islamophobia . I wont be responsible if your work gets deleted in case of a revert .Thanks . F.a.y. 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I think some of Pecher's edit's are good but I think that the quotes are selective. Of course, I can not prove it since I have not read the books he quoted from. Anyway, I am currently tired and want to take a rest. --Aminz 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue with Farhanser's edits is that they consist almost exclusively of original research at best. The current version does exactly what it is supposed to do, quotes reliable secondary sources. "Fixing" it by introducing original research is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Jayjg 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The workshop still hasn't even been created. Do you guys want to use a workshop or just continue on here? --Cyde Weys 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral. --Aminz 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems joining if someone starts it. Pecher 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The workshop is open

I copied and pasted the last version by Farhansher of Rules of war in Islam. I haven't followed that page, so I'll leave it to someone else to jump in and start editing. Tom Harrison 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

I may get into a revert war. Pecher is inserting his POV's into the article Persian Jews as well. He doesn't accept, for example, any of my arguments in the shia rituality part(See the Persian Jews article). I don't care what is going to happen or that I may be blocked. I wanted to be tolerant but seem not useful. When someone does not accept logical reasoning, conversation is not justified. --Aminz 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you're withdrawing from further discussion? Pecher 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE withdrawing from discussion. Why don't you answer to my arguments? --Aminz 09:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? Pecher 09:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)