Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Introduction / Summary / meaning of 'dhimma'

I've taken the liberty of shortening the summary and getting much more to the point. Details are better left to the body of the article. It's the length I'm after. Feel free to tweak the summary, but for heaven's sake, we don't need two full paragraphs. A couple shorties like this is more elegent.

- Who: Muslims and "People of the Book", eventually Hindus and Sikhs

- What: Taxes, Rights, Limitations

- When: Since Islam

- Where: In Islamic States

- Why: In dispute. I think a fair compromise is either state multiple sides of the argument, or leave this component to the body of the article.

(Anon, May 5)

I revised the material in the summary to correct the lexicographical material on dhimmi and dhimma, and included a dictionary citation for the dh-m-m root. The request for a citation for 'symbols' of inferiority has also been addressed. This material was then moved to the Background section where it really belongs. This makes the summary very short - just one sentence - which defines what a dhimmi is. Eagleswings 11:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Bias

There's a modern bias that rings throughout this page. This can't be helped to some degree. It's hard not to sound like a libertarian when we can exercise the moral judgements of today upon the policies of the past. However, saying that dhimmis in the middle ages experienced an advanced form of persecution would be like saying that Athenian Democracy was an advanced form of dictatorship. The idea of a dhimmi, like the idea of a Democracy, is a concept that's been open to dispute, revision, and significant swings in meaning.

We need to stop looking at this as an evaluation of some universal notion of dhimmi from today's standards of religious freedom. There IS no universal standard -- aside from what the Prophet Muhammed is said to have done in the Quran. Thus, in order to really provide total and complete historical accuracy, we need to describe the multiple different policies towards dhimmis in various times and places: Dhimmi back then, Dhimmi today, Dhimmi under this ruler, Dhimmi under that ruler, Dhimmi in that country, similar policies to Dhimmi elsewhere (e.g.: the Byzantine Empire), and so on.

In telling history, you compare events to what came before them -- you seldom stop to analyze the events based on what we now know today except perhaps at the very end.

Yes, and those Negroes were really happy in the antebellum South.Incorrect 03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph in Background section

Now the Background section contains the following paragraph that should be partially deleted, partially moved to other sections:

In the Middle Ages, the dhimmi concept was tolerant by the standards of other monotheistic religions. Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within Muslim societies, on the condition (also required of Muslim subjects) of submission to their rulers. Many Christian and Jewish scientists prospered under Muslim rule, an example being the Muslim state of Cordoba in Southern Spain. Maimonides, considered by some the greatest Jewish philosopher and Talmudic sage, lived in Muslim Spain, North Africa and Egypt. However, he and his family fled Spain to escape religious persecution after Cordoba was conquered by the less tolerant Almohad dynasty from the Almoravids, and then fled from North Africa as well, before eventually finding refuge in Egypt. Some of his more famous works were his Iggereth Teiman, a letter written to raise the spirits of the severely oppressed Jews of Yemen, and Iggereth HaShmad, an essay on the legal implications of forced conversion to Islam.

The sentences "In the Middle Ages, the dhimmi concept was tolerant by the standards of other monotheistic religions. Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within Muslim societies, on the condition (also required of Muslim subjects) of submission to their rulers." do not provide any factual information and appear to be in violation of [[WP:AWW]. The essence of this article should be the difference between the treatment of Muslims and dhimmis, not some very general similarities. The rest of the paragraph on scientists, and especially on Maimonides, is relevant, but it does not belong to the Background. Instead, it should be moved to a different section, probably a new one, something like "Prominent dhimmis".--Pecher 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, why wouldn't you want to place an idea or an action in the context of the times that it existed? It seems to me that it would give one a fuller understanding of topic. However to say that an Islamic society was more tollerent than a contemporary seems untenable. The reason I feel this is:

1) How can you objectivly measure tollerence

2) How can we take into account the personalities of the rullers involved? How good are our records of a particular event? Are there other factors that we are unaware of?

3) Was something true for only part of the muslim world or the whole?

4) Was something true at one time but changed over time?

--Dr.Worm 09:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies

The section should be deleted because now it is devoted to persecution of Jews in Visigothic Spain, a topic that has nothing to do with the subject of article. Furthermore, the heading of the section does not correspond to its content.--Pecher 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To do

1. Add structure to "Status of Dhimmis", create subsections on religious, economic, and other aspects of dhimmi laws and practice;
2. Clean up Modern vs. customary practice:
   1. Shorten lengthy quotes, especially Lewis;
   2. Add more material on modern aspects of dhimmitude.--Pecher 13:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Dhimmi status being traced to sura 9.29? This was argued about a long time ago and now you have decided to bring it back up. All I request is a source, so I have kept your other edits while commenting the section out. You also said you removed a repetition of the Ibn Kathir quote and at the same time asked me to stop removing the Ibn Kathir quote. Do you see the contradiction here? Yuber^(talk) 14:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yuber here. Restarting an edit war from two months back is a really bad idea.

We really need a scholarly opinion for this, rather than everybody inserting what they've heard or think. Can someone provide it please?

Lengthy quotes from Bernard Lewis are a good idea for an article like this which is otherwise a playground for ideologues, because Lewis for all his faults and for all that most Arab and Muslim intellectuals can't stand him is a serious scholar whose expertise on this question is widely acknowledged. Having quotes from Lewis gives us some anchor of reputable scholarly opinion. Otherwise the Hizb al-Tahrir and Bat Ye'or-supporting loonies will take over.

We also need a citation for the idea that dhimmi status applies in at least one modern country, otherwise that will have to go.

While most scholars writing about the issue have emphasised the relative tolerance of the dhimma compared to Christian practices and it therefore deserves a place, I agree that the emphasis on the Visigoths is peculiar and should go.Palmiro | Talk 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"As late as the 16th century, religious tolerance in Europe was greatest within the Ottoman Empire." This is not a peacock term but a statement of fact. Of course it should be sourced, but equally I doubt that it is controversial. Palmiro | Talk 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good example of a peacock term. Compare with examples from WP:APT: "one of the best..." or "the most influential..." etc. The phrase "religious tolerance was greatest" continues the sequence very nicely. However, if we describe prohibitions imposed on dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire and those imposed on religious minorities in Europe, that will be a statement of facts. Saying something was "the greatest" is simply an unsourced statement. Equally, saying "dhimmis had less rights and less obligations than Muslims" is simply a statement which is clearly true from reading the rest of the article. Palmiro | Talk 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro that you cannot say religious tolerance in Europe was greatest within the Ottoman Empire, because there is no reliable way to measure tollerence. It is best to leave the judgement up to the reader.--Dr.Worm 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My question about the origin of the dhimmi status still hasn't been answered. I honestly think the version of the paragraph that was on here before was the closest it has ever come to neutrality, so I still don't see the reason for the change. Yuber^(talk) 21:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's another to do item: to expand on the sources of dhimmi laws, which at the moment appear to be not only sura 9.29 and Pact of Umar, but also Byzantian discrminatory legislation against non-Melkite Christians and Jews. I plan to work on that shortly.--Pecher 22:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I hope I can help--Dr.Worm 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article

Pecher and Big Adamsky, can you both please slow down and disucss more of your changes here? This is a controversial article and I don;t see consensus for some of the changes that have recently been made.

• Dhimma status in Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia - no source given, but if you had read the talk page you would have seen that there was a source given for dhimma status not applying in Iran and discussion had appeared to come down on the side of the view that it doesn;t apply in KSA either.
• "In both legal theory and practice, dhimmis had fewer legal rights and obligations than Muslims." This is not "weasel words" but a simple statement of fact. I don't see why it should be removed. I think the "weasel words" and "peacock terms" guidelines should not be taken as a mandate to delete anything that doesn;t have the precision of an entry in a timeline. Otherwise WP will be reduced to a collection of factoids.

Can we please discuss changes more thoroughly or else cite impeccable sources for them? Thanks. Palmiro | Talk 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement "dhimmis had fewer legal rights and obligations than Muslims" is meaningless because neither rights, nor obligations are additive. I am not sure someone was ever able to count all the rights and obligations of Muslims and dhimmis in Islamic law, but even if one had done that, the results of that count would not have supplied any meaningful information. When people say "to have equal rights," they mean "to have the same rights," not "to have the same number of rights." The statement is biased because it implies that dhimmis were somehow compensated for the lack of certain rights by the relief from some duties. However, it is not the number, but the nature of rights and obligations that matters.--Pecher 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite follow that logic. Clearly, if the rights of Muslim citizens constituted "full rights", then dhimmis did not have full rights. However, there is no universally valid set of "citizens' rights" that applied in all times and all places. Muslim citizens in traditional, pre-modern Islamic states did not have many of the rights that citizens of a modern state take for granted. In the context of a pre-modern state governed by sharia, if Muslims had the right to X, Y and Z and dhimmis only had the right to X and Y, it makes to my mind perfect sense to say "dhimmis had fewer rights than Muslims." Palmiro | Talk 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If Muslims have obligations X, Y and Z, but dhimmis have obligations A and B, then a comparison of the two sets of obligations in terms of their number is meaningless.--Pecher 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand Pecher's point. Palmiro, would you consent to comparing and conrasting muslim and non-muslim responsibilities in the body of the article instead?--Dr.Worm 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can slow down. Well, here's one source (a US State Dept. report) outlining how the courts of law and the political structures of said examples provide for and sanction differentiation based on tradition and custom. Hope this helps. //Big Adamsky 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! However, none of these actually state that the dhimma status applies. In the case of Malaysia, it sounds quite clear that it doesn't. Iran clearly shows many of the features associated with the historic status of the dhimma peoples, but not others (notably the symptomatic questions of jizya and military service); Olivier Roy (cited above) was quite categorical in stating that the Islamic Republic did not impose dhimma status on its non-Muslim citizens, but of course Olivier Roy (especially when only mentioning the question briefly) is not gospel. Saudi is a trickier question; the dhimma status seems to be more or less moot there as the state doesn;t appear to actually allow any non-Muslims to have Saudi nationality. If they are resident foreigners, dhimma status would not be an issue. This is also discussed further up this page. Any views? Palmiro | Talk 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dhimma is fully applicable in the case of Saudi Arabia. Even if the country has no non-Muslim citizens, there are Christian and Hindu migrant workers.--Pecher 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That is original research so please quote a reliable source. Yuber^(talk) 21:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The existance of many Muslim, Christian and Hindu migrant workers is common knowledge. --Dr.Worm 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi status applies only to subjects of the state as far as I know. Palmiro | Talk 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article defines "dhimmi" as "a person living in a Muslim state", thus not necessarily a subject. I can see some problems with the definition, e.g. it is unclear what "Muslim state" is, but that's a separate issue.--Pecher 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then, it is badly defined. Feel free to amend the definition. Palmiro | Talk 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't even see a section on Dhimmis in the modern age. Are there actually contemporary examples of a government inforcing Dhimma? (outside of the Talaban) Or are you considering adding a section to the "Consequences of dhimma"

stating how it's ideas have effected laws in certain islamic countries?--Dr.Worm 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir are the biggest proponents of Dhimmi in the modern age. Although many middle east countries impose laws that impose islam on non-muslims(clothing rules and alchol resrictions etc), it is arguable that these laws are institusional anti-kaffirism not dhimmi.Hypnosadist 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, it is incorrect to have any references to Dhimmi in modern times, and the thrust of this article should be historical in focus. I hope everyone can agree on this.--Dr.Worm 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point DrWorm, while the artical should have a historical focus it should also point out that this concept is not dead. Here is a quote from islamonline about if a non-muslim wife can inherit from her muslim husband.

" Dear questioner, as regard your question, we’d like to make it clear to you that basically, non-Muslims are not allowed to inherit Muslims. But a Muslim can donate or bequeath some money that does not exceed the third of his property to a non-Muslim. If a bequest that exceeds more than the third of the property is given to someone, it is up to the heirs, either to agree or not. Shedding more light on the issue, we’d like to cite for you what Ibn Qudama, a Hanafite scholar, states in his book “Al-Mughni”: “It is permissible for a Muslim to bequeath some of his property to a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state), and he Dhimmi can do the same for his fellow Dhimmi. This is the view maintained by Shuraih, Ash-Shu`abi, Ath-Thawri, Ash-Shafi`i, Ishaq and other people of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, and no dissenting view was recorded on this. "

This is from thier Fatwah section and is dated 10th Nov 2003, also there are 7 more Fatwah's concerning status of Dhimmi's in islamic law. This should be enough proof that this is a contempory concept as well as an historical one. I think this quote with its references should be added to the Legal aspects under a title of Inheritance practices. Here is the link to the fatwah.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544584 . Hypnosadist 16:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir

I fully concur with the point made above Talk:Dhimmi#Liberation party that an extensive excursion into the draft Caliphate constitution proposed by Hizb ut-Tahrir is irrelevant for this article. I have removed the material.--Pecher 13:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. --Dr.Worm 09:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir and its aim to impose dhimmi on all non-muslims world wide is important. This has ceased to be a historical concept and has become a part of "the war on terror". This concept is at the heart of that terrorist organisation's motivation. Some reference to this should be put in. As a new member i am loath to do a change on such a contested page, could some compromise be found. Hypnosadist 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that that information should be on the entry for Hizb ut-Tahrir, and not in this article. If Hizb ut-Tahrir wants dhimmi, it is an atribute of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and not importaint to understaning Dhimmi status. Also, if the historical concept is importinat to the "the war on terror", then it should be debated on that page. --Dr.Worm 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Differing views on the status of dhimmi

Now the section Modern vs. customary practice contains the following paragraph:

Some Muslim authors present the dhimmi as being equal to Muslims. For example:

"Islam does not permit discrimination in the treatment of other human beings on the basis of religion or any other criteria... it emphasises neighborliness and respect for the ties of relationship with non-Muslims ...within this human family, Jews and Christians, who share many beliefs and values with Muslims, constitute what Islam terms Ahl al-Kitab, that is, People of the Scripture, and hence Muslim have a special relationship to them as fellow 'Scriptuaries'."

In my opinion, the paragraph does not contain any meaningful information, just general words. I propose that it be deleted.--Pecher 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Again I have to disagree with you. If a significant Muslim authority says that Islam does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion, that is highly germane. In fact, it could hardly be more relevant. That it is phrased in absolute terms does not reduce it to general words, it actually makes it more powerful. Palmiro | Talk 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote is worded too generally. It must be more substantive so that we could know exactly what this person means under "discrimination" . And why do you think Suzanne Haneef is a "significant Muslim authority".--Pecher 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I was replying hurriedly and in a theoretical way on the basis of what was here on the talk page. You're quite right, I don't have any reason to believe that Suzanne Haneef is a significant Muslim authority, in fact it seems pretty clear that she's not and she's quite likely not really quotable on her own account. Though if lots of (Muslim or other) writers say this, then that's worth saying. If lots of writers (or apologeticists) say this but most religoius authorities say something else, that's also worth reporting. Palmiro | Talk 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I believe that members of a religion should be allowed to define what their religion allows or does not allow, I feel the paragraph should be deleted. My reason is that it is not germane to the topic. I can understand that a contemporary muslim can feel that his religion does not permit descrimination, so he would want to include that paragraph so that a reader would not confuse treatments of dhimmis with contemporary Islam. However, we should only be concerned with historical facts in this article.--Dr.Worm 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tolerant by the standards of whom?

The article currently says, " the dhimmi concept was tolerant by the standards of other monotheistic religions". What other monotheistic religions are we comparing it to? I suspect that the only one in question is Christianity, in which case we should just say that. Palmiro | Talk 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should compare it at all - that takes us from NPOV into the realm of critique. Pjrich 07:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By omitting any comparison, though, by default we're comparing it to today's standards. That's DEFINITELY a non-neutral point of view, since it obscures its actual position in history. What was there before Dhimmi status? That might be a much better way to compare it -- across history, rather than across religions.

I think the correct way of dealing with this would be to make a companion article documenting minority treatment in christian lands. --Dr.Worm 09:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not compare it to today's standards? This kind of treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia, continues to this day. One need only look to recent news reports of criminal charges pressed for proselytization and apostasy. Here's what the US State Department has to say about it in Saudi Arabia in 2003, under the auspices of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor:

The Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activity that attracts official attention. The Government has stated publicly, including before the UN Committee on Human Rights (UNCHR) in Geneva, that its policy is to allow non-Muslim foreigners to worship privately. However, the Government does not provide explicit guidelines--such as the number of persons permitted to attend and acceptable locations--for determining what constitutes private worship, which makes distinctions between public and private worship unclear. Such lack of clarity and instances of inconsistent enforcement led many non-Muslims to worship in fear of harassment and in such a way as to avoid discovery. The Government almost always deports those detained for visible non-Muslim worship after sometimes lengthy periods of arrest during investigation. In some cases, they also are sentenced to receive lashes prior to deportation.

Certainly a historical examination of comparable 12th Century systems of oppression of subjugated minorities would be enlightening, but to pretend that the system of Islamic dhimmitude has no modern relevance, or to suggest that it should not be evaluated in modern terms when its general forms are being imposed in the present day, would be the opposite. --mvpel 00:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sayyed Al-Qimni

The article now has a paragraph quoting Egyptian intellectual Sayyed Al-Qimni:

Sayyed Al-Qimni has criticized books used in the curriculum at Al-Azhar University in Cairo and other Islamic universities for teaching that dhimmis should be degraded. For example: "If a dhimmi invites a Muslim to a wedding celebration, he must not go, 'because one must degrade dhimmis...'" 2

Sayyed Al-Qimni is not an Islamic authority; his position may be mentioned in a section like Criticism of dhimmi laws among Muslims if such a section is created, but hardly elsewhere. Furthermore, in July 2005 he retracted everything he had said or written before [1]. At this point in the development of the article, references to his views are misleading and should be removed from the article, at least temporarily.--Pecher 12:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, we disagree... First of all, if Memri can be believed, it would appear that he publicly recanted because of a death threat. That can't be held to retrospectively invalidate what he said at the time. Secondly, again according to the website quoted, he is/was a lecturer in the sociology of religion. That makes his views quite germane. And thirdly, I strongly object (as a general principle, not just in this case) to the idea that everything critical about a person/concept which is the subject of an article on Wikipedia should be shoved into a "criticism of" section. Although even worse is the development of contesting "arguments for" and arguments against" sections. In this particular case, I think this quote fits reasonably well into a discussion of how Muslim/Islamic writers actually portray the position of the dhimmi, giving an example of both bigotted views in official use, and reaction against that. I do have some concerns about using Memri as a source, but I imagine all this could be confirmed elsewhere. Palmiro | Talk 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sayyed Al-Qimni recanted his views after recieving a death threat regarding the life of his daughter. He personally lives under protection of the police while his daughter does not.

Christians and Jews under the East Roman Empire at the time of the Arab conquests, welcomed their Muslim invaders (more or less). The ERE was relatively intolerant and the Arab conquerers actually discouraged conversion because a special tax was to be leveled against non-Muslims. However, until the Abbasid empire, non-Arab muslim converts were still taxed according to the laws of the Dhimmi. Therefore, the early Arab Muslim elites saw that it was to their benefit to be tolerant to non-Muslims so as to not lose this source of money.

Personal attitudes

The section starts with "The attitude towards dhimmis varies from Muslim to Muslim." However, the article is not about personal attitudes. I have removed the sentence.--Pecher 13:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If an idea is germane, it surely merits inclusion. I find the sentence interesting, and I can't think of a better article for it. I would support its reinstatement. Pjrich 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this reinstatement as well. The truth is that there are dozens of different interpretations of dhimmi status. To say Islamic views on minority religions isn't about personal attitudes is like saying that American views on Democracy isn't about politics.

I think it should be removed. If one wants to invlude a section of modern muslim's attitudes towards it, I don't know how it could be addressed without alot of independant research.--Dr.Worm 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

These edits are essentially trying to hammer in a particular point of view. I've put an NPOV tag on the page for this reason. Palmiro | Talk 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove "narrowly" (which I put there to distinguish from "general" used later)? -- Fine. No biggie.

But seeking to confine focus to a strictly-defined archaic term which "does not appear to apply anywhere now" (your words) seemingly for the sole purpose of deliberately exluding all the others because they're, er, "inconvenient" constitutes irresponsibility regards the linguistic archival task at hand. Who, one reasonably wonders, has a "particular point of view" he's trying to "hammer"?

And: "[citation needed]", the little superscript tag winks, as if the editor who put it there couldn't be bothered to page-down to all of the applicable citations already neatly listed for him in See Also, References, and External Links.--Mike18xx 13:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't given a citation for the rather obscurely worded and dubious claim that "the romanized term has gained increased use in English to indicate either second-class citizens residing in, or the external appeasors (pejorative) of, less-tolerant theocracies.", so the citation tag belongs there until you do. As for the rest of your remarks, I find it rather hard to work out what they mean. This is an article about a historic practice which no longer, it would appear, exists. Are you disputing this? Palmiro | Talk 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no basis for this claim: "More generally (contemporary), "dhimmis" are any non-Muslims subject to restrictions under Shariah". Please stop inserting your personal theories into the article. Palmiro | Talk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break; your position here is simply untenable -- attempting to confine usage to one archaism is flat-out ludicrous when the wiki entry itself doesn't confine itself so, Amazon lists eleven books with the word in the title, and Google returns 1,420,000 hits -- whaddya think everybody's talking about? Why don't you go look, instead of professing ignorance and incredulity?--Mike18xx 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

>Sigh< OK. Here [ ya go.] Bon Appétit! (Now don't nobody say I haven't done anything to help out around here.) --Mike18xx 15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

>BIGGER SIGH< If no one now is living under laws of Dhimmitude comparable to laws that existed from 700 AD to the end of the Ottoman Empire, then it is a STATEMENT OF FACT that dhimmi a historic practice which no longer exists. --Dr.Worm 10:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi is a word/concept of Sharia law, anywhere that professes to be ruled by Sharia defacto enforces Dhimmi. There may be many reasons why they do not do it like the Ottomans,ie no non-muslim to apply it to or different traditions of islamic law or even just not calling it Dhimmi in international press releases. Check the link i gave above for more proof the concept is alive and well.Hypnosadist 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you started turning the wiki entry into gobbledygook, it was actually about dhimmis, not about what a few right-wing extremists may use as a pejorative term. I thought this was meant to be a serious encyclopaedia, not yet another nonsense-filled internet forum. But hey, it's looking more and more like I was wrong. Palmiro | Talk 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Palmiro , I think you are gonna deal with this better than me . Watchout for this article becoming a collection of links from Phobic sites ,irrelevent rants e.t.c. Very soon this person is gonna say "muslims do it " & quote a ton of irrelevent stuff from phobic sites & say its sourced , or the good old "appeal to google". His predecessors had done the same thing , & so is he . See his edits at Honour killing too . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of trying to deal with this sort of crap. Life is too short. Palmiro | Talk 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You would much oblige every particpant in the discussion by commenting on the subject in question and refraining from ad hominem attacks.--Pecher 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would try my best to talk to people who are willing to talk . Otherwise this is the only way I can deal with long , idiotic , phobic , irrelevent rants posted by people with a track record of POV pushing . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. Your feeling that someone has done something wrong does not authorize you to respond in kind. Such a response would be wrong too.--Pecher 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more disinterested voice will help. Palmiro is right that dhimma no longer exists as defined in Sharia (e.g., Saudi Arabia must first acknowledge the existence of other religions). If we must use epithets, every usage of the word is either (1) an "archaism", or (2) a "neologism".

A balanced article on dhimmi should include the Quranic sources — the history — in addition to the contemporary Bat Ye'or-style usage. This balanced article would also clearly explain the difference between them. Last I saw the article, it was a well-written explanation of the historical instution; this is an opportunity to address new uses of the word, and to clearly and fairly weave new ideas into the article.

It may be that the best course of action is to put new material into Dhimmitude and have each link the other from the intro and/or a section stub.--Mgreenbe 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we have separate articles for Christian and Christianness? American and Americanness? It seems to me that the best way to cover these modern fuzzy usages would be to add a section entitled "Modern uses" or somesuch, explain how certain jingoistic morons political commentators apply the term to repressed religious minorities in Islamic countries (or to anyone who doesn't advocate blood-red savage war against the latter) and link to List of political epithets somewhere. Problem solved.

(p.s. if it is indeed applied to "any second-class citizens residing within theocracratic nations", what about the Shiites in Saudi Arabia or the Sunnis in Iran?) —Charles P._(Mirv) 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmitude is a term of Bat Ye'or's; while similar in construction to "christianness", it refers more to the mentality of submission produced by dhimma. Separate articles, however, would require a good deal of tact and discretion to avoid being a POV fork. --Mgreenbe 01:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's so, then an article on dhimmitude specifically devoted to people who did not live under a dhimma would be. . . odd. (Not to say "arrant nonsense".) Continuing the above analogy, it would be like writing an article on Christianness that described "Christian behavior" by people who were not, in fact, Christians. —Charles P._(Mirv) 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

<dryly> One certainly hopes it's possible to employ SOME one-word term to describe stipulated repressed religious minorities in Islamic countries without various & sundry al-takeyya practicioners incessently impugning the motives of those who'd seek to do so, because, minimally, repeating ad nauseum the considerably lengthier "repressed religious minorities in Islamic countries" sucks a significant amount of bandwidth and toner cartridges when spread across aggragate humanity, and it would be irresponsible of us not to all do our part to save the environment. (This being, of course, aside from all the jingoistic, blood-red savage war-seeking morons already using a particular term for the last thirty years--have they no shame?)--Mike18xx 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you like, I can write a Firefox plugin for you that will automatically type the phrase when you bang on your keyboard in anger. On second thought, it would probably just be a button.

I think that the contemporary "dhimmitude" concept deserves mention. To attempt to conflate the Sharia practice and general repression of other religions, however, is too inexact; if some notable, reputable sources do conflate them, we can cite their POV. I don't think arguing over this is appropriate anymore; you have been neither civil nor assumed good faith from the beginning. --Mgreenbe 01:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One certainly hopes it's possible to employ SOME one-word term. . .—Perhaps it isn't. Comparison with the treatment of the term apartheid is apt, I think. The main article deals exclusively with the temporal and geographical context of the original apartheid system; political and polemical uses are dealt with in a separate article, with the caveat that they're a: political, b: polemical, and c: dubious. (That solution would also be workable, except that I can't think of a title for the article on alternate uses; Dhimmi outside the classical Islamic state, maybe.) —Charles P._(Mirv) 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be Dhimmi(neoglism) . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But arguing over it while you're getting the (ephemeral) last word is appropriate? Uh huh. Are you really sure you're being civil or assuming good faith?

Mgreenbe, I would certainly hate to be confused with those who put on airs of piety and good faith while having ulterior agendas, such as obfuscating the transmission of knowledge by running "blocker" games for their religion to sweep horrible things under the rug. (At least they're not all belligerant, like the Scientologists...then again it's comforting to their psyche to know "their guys" already run dozens of nations.) Such, after all, constitutes hypocrisy.

"I think that the contemporary "dhimmitude" concept deserves mention." One certainly hopes so, for Wikipedia's sake, since tracking language development is a primary mission of encyclopedias, regardless of whether purple-faced apologists would like to wish it all away as "right-wing extremism".--Mike18xx 02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact tha no nation on earth would say that it is enforcing the Dhimmi system. If there is one, tell me it's name and provide a link! Now, if you want to make a case that dhimmitude effected modern laws, you are free to make that case! But is is not the dhimi system, that is the effects of the Dhimmi system.

I find your implication insulting and rude, and I strongly encourage you to read WP:NPA.

The talk page of an article is for discussing how to improve the article. You would like to include discussion of dhimmitude. Great idea! Since I own none of the books involved, I've asked you to provide the section and citations. You are correct that I am attempting to end the argument; I am trying to begin discussion. --Mgreenbe 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"I find your implication insulting and rude;" "I can write a Firefox plugin for you."--Mike18xx 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please just open a dictionary?

Welcome to the Internet, kids. Please unlock the article when you're done so I can fix your typos. Pjrich 07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pjrich. That's rude. Why don't you use your spelling help someone else's article if that is your attitude/.

Pecher's Major Edit

Good. It needed a fat overhaul. You'll want to link janissaries in the Dhimmi#Personal_freedom section already referencing such activities.--Mike18xx 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of.--Mike18xx 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's at least one bad link in the Humiliation section.--Mike18xx 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which one?--Pecher 11:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind; it's working again (site crash, I imagine).--Mike18xx 11:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

funerals

"Furthermore, dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers."

I think that this sentence is ambiguous. Muslims themselves are taught to refrain from loud lamentations at funerals. It is forbidden to perform the funeral prayer for Muslims that did not adhere to the 5 daily prayers before passing away. Muslims do not perform this prayer for non-Muslims either. Is the author trying to say that dhimmis were held to the same funeral requirements that Muslims are held to? Perhaps the author means that dhimmis could not offer their own prayers (be they christian or not) for the dead? Either way, this needs clarification. I haven't edited it myself because I'm new to Wikipedia and unsure about how the whole process works.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prettypedantic (talk • contribs) February 2, 2006, 02:06.

Usually the author means what he says. It is not appropriate to note whether sharia allows Muslims to lament loudly or not. There have already been attempts to insert this sort of parallelism into the article, but the article is about dhimmis, so let's stick to the subject.--Pecher 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

However this phrasing is incorrect. The phrasing implies that only dhimmis were restricted in this matter, when in reality all members of the state had these requirements whether they were Muslim or not. A more accurate phrasing of the term would be to mention that this applied to everyone and dhimmis were not singled out. To write wording that implies a group was singled out when they were not is not accurate. --OzzieGT 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to take what you see at face value without ascribing to the text any implied meaning. Pecher^Talk 13:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

All text relies on an implied context. Without context, there is no particular reason for any text to be written. You might also say that dhimmis had to bury their dead without choking on a grapefruit. At face value, it is true, but without the context, it isn't a very useful sentence. Clarification is necessary to avoid ambiguity. Pjrich 07:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The text contains most of the needed info, that these rules on funerals are inforced due to what muslims are allowed to do due to there faith, it just shows the reason behind the impossition of Muslim religious views.Hypnosadist 14:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources - one reason why there is indeed an objection

While this article is now well-written, it is extremely tendentious. Furthermore, it seems to rely largely on the writings of Bat Ye'or, a controversial and extreme figure who should not be the principal source for a Wikipedia article. Palmiro | Talk 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds too general. I prefer discussions of specific points.--Pecher 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was in the process of making quite a few and when I hit the "edit' button I found that the page had been protected. The fact that you are relying on a bigotted lunatic should be quite specific enough, I would have thought. Palmiro | Talk 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's just an ad hominem attack on the author, who is far from the only source. Please state your specific objections, if any.--Pecher 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a statement that you have relied in large part on what would appear, prima facie, to be a highly unreliable source. This is pretty relevant. For the delectation of readers, here is what appears to be the view of a serious historian of Christian-Muslim relations, Fr. Sidney Griffiths of the Catholic University of America, on Bat Ye'or (see Talk:Bat Ye'or for source):

Also easily available is Bat Ye̓or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam; from Jihad to Dhimmitude; Seventh-Twentieth Century (Madison & Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996). One must use this book with great care due to the author̓s extreme anti-Islamic prejudice and consequent distortion of the facts of history, both Christian and Islamic. Nevertheless, the quoted sources do provide some sense, albeit highly distorted by reason of selective quotation, of the difficulties experienced by Christians over the centuries living under Islamic rule. The book gave rise to some surprisingly bigoted remarks by Richard John Neuhaus, “The Public Square; the Approaching Century of Religion,” First Things no. 76 (October, 1997), pp. 75-79. There are similar problems with Bat Ye̓or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Rutherford, Madison, & Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985) and with Bat Ye̓or, Islam and Dhimmitude; Where Civilizations Collide (Madison & Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002). It remains to Bat Ye̓or̓s credit to have raised an important issue that still has not received adequate study.

Amusingly, yet another Batophile had posted the link this appeared on on Bat Ye'or as a citation to bolster the claim that "dhimmitude" was entering widespread use in the academic field (and indeed, Griffith did use the term in the article in question).Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised to find out that there's an edit war on this page. So it's been protected. Please solve your problems. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised to see you lock the page after one of your al takeyya clique buddies had it all back to his liking. No, not surprised at all.--Mike18xx 19:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If Bat Ye'or is so important , his claims should be mentioned under the section "Controversial claims by non-muslims" . Unless some body produces authentic , verifiable source of these claims ( other then pointing towards some other Islamophobic site) , all of it remains claims , & that should be mentioned . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is a woman, as it happens.--Pecher 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that the controversy here was about Bat Ye'or's sex . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It just reveals your knowledge of the subject in question. You have no idea who Bat Ye'or is or what she has written, but you know that she is wrong.--Pecher 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to read the works of a minor and unreliable author to achieve a good knowledge of a subject. This is a most peculiar contention. Palmiro | Talk 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my argument. I am wondering how Farkhansher knows she is wrong without reading her.--Pecher 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone writes "the Battle of Maysaloun took place in 1922"and cites Mu'arrikh Majhoul, I don't have to read Mu'arrikh Majhoul's book to say that he is wrong. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Does "he" stand for the editor or for Mu'arrikh Majhoul?--Pecher 19:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The latter; that's my point. If someone tells me someone else has in a book written something I know to be wrong, I don't need to read the book to say that the mistake they are reported as having made is indeed a mistake. Palmiro | Talk12:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it also possible that the editor misquoted the book?--Pecher 12:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. That's what I said: the mistake "they are reported as having made". But it has not been suggested that you have misquoted Bat Ye'or. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By implication, it should be Bat Ye'or who is wrong. Will you then point out some specific errors in her analysis, like you did with Mu'arrikh Majhoul? Pecher^Talk 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not entering the question of where Bat Ye'or is right or wrong in this instance, but merely pointing out the logical flaw in your remarks to Farranshehr. Palmiro | Talk 11:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Still cannot see any logical flaw on my part. Maybe the topic is too minor and worn out to be continued? Pecher ^Talk 11:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably, and has drifted too far to the right ;) Palmiro | Talk 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is indeed important because her crackpot theories provide ready self-affirmation for all the people bigoted against Arabs and Muslims who have more opinions than information on anything to do with this part of the world (I'm not referring to anyone editing here, this is a general observation) and as a result those theories are spreading more rapidly than bird flue around internet sites like Little Green Footballs. Of course this does not make her into a suitable source of information on a historical topic to be presented to readers of a serious encyclopaedia, but what's that got to do with anything? If you read the article on her there should be links to some of her articles. I recommend the one on Eurabia. You'd split your sides laughing if you didn't know that there were people who take this sort of thing seriously. Palmiro | Talk 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific to say about this article?--Pecher 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be pettily obstreperous. It's perfectly plain that if someone says "your source is not reliable" it is a specific criticism. But in this case, the general criticism is the most important one: you have selected all the elements to make Muslim treatment of non-Muslims appear as bad as possible. Your attempts to treat every comment about the article (and every other article you edit) as if they were arguments in a court of law to be themselves established or struck out, preferably on technical grounds, is unhelpful. Palmiro | Talk 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like your court of law comparison. Likewise, the standard of proof in Wikipedia is set high. It is not sufficient to say "your source is not reliable"; rather one should provide evidence that the source is not reliable, by referring to facts that contradict the source. If I have understood you correctly, you are not saying that the events I have cited did not take place or that the rulings of Muslim scholars are misquoted, but that there are also other events and rulings that cast everything into a different light. I have no problems with this approach: cite your sources and edit. I cannot help wondering what has caused such an uproar about my revision. All the major rights, obligations and restrictions applicable to dhimmis are there, just supported with sources and examples. Even the Lewis quote stayed, just abbreviated.--Pecher 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even the Lewis quote? You base a whole article largely on an extremist like Bat Ye'or and quote it as an example of your magnanimity that you allowed an abbreviated version of a quote by one of the most renowned English-speaking scholars on the Muslim world to stay (and a scholar, I might add, who is regarded with a very jaundiced eye in the Muslim world)? This is ludicrous. You have edited the Bat Ye'or article. You are perfectly well aware that she is widely regarded as controversial, an extremist and a peddler of conspiracy theories. (Thougfh since you went to work on the article about her, those facts have become thinner on the ground there.) Palmiro | Talk 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the Lewis quote because it is perfectly consistent with what follows it. You do not object to the quote but you do object to the material that agrees with this quote. I fail to see any logic here.--Pecher 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the court of law example, I am talking about, inter alia, your tedious habit of affecting not to understand what other people are saying on talk pages, as this case perfectly exhibits - a call for more specific points of disagreement when my remarks were perfectly obvious and not relating to specific points you had entered but to a. the overall tendency and b. your ridiculous source. Palmiro | Talk 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you fail to respond how the two versions are different on substance.--Pecher 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

finally, you seem not to understand a basic principle about citing sources. If your source is not reliable, it is not up to anyone else to disprove the points you derive from it. It is up to you to provide a reliable source for them instead. Palmiro | Talk 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's your POV that my source is unreliable; others may believe otherwise. It is not sufficient to assert lack of reliability; rather lack of reliability must be demonstrated. E.g., bat Ye'or says this and this; however, in fact it was that and that. Anyway, we seem to have arrived at the point where the best solution would be to unlock the article so that you could edit it and I would see where exactly we disagree.--Pecher 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not my POV that your source is unreliable. There are many cases of people more authoritative than me condemning her. There are plenty of real, sane historians who have written about these issues, so we should use them. NPOV and the use of reliable sources are not intended to turn pages about debated historical topics into slanging matches between proponents of extreme positions. We should be giving weight to serious scholars.

Unfortunately, I doubt if I'm going to get much time over the next while to deal with this issue, even if the page is unlocked. Palmiro | Talk 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously, you said you had hit the edit button before seeing that the page was locked. I thought it would be good if you did the edits you intended to do then when the page is unlocked.--Pecher 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

I was impressed by Jimbo's comment at the top of Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I think it might be helpful if everyone here stopped remarking on each other's behavior and confined discussion to how to edit the article. Let's not have any more comments about 'al-takeyya practicioners' or 'your tedious habit of affecting not to understand' or anything else. No more snarky edit summaries, no more 'You said...' gottchas. If someone else does it, don't respond to it, just let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the half-day since the page has been locked, I haven't seen any specific objection to any specific alleged fact in the Pecher re-write (which I thought was very generous to "the other side" by confining itself completely to history and eschewing examination of contemporary usage). Additionally, given that "one side" includes a member with admin privileges willing to just stamp his boot down to get his way, I'm not exactly enthused over for the prospects of honest inquiry toward a truthful account. Particularly since in the two instances I have seen that boot in action, it came down to protect reverts away from versions with more references.--Mike18xx 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So do you see your approach to editing as effective, or not? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for the following reason: I am able to very quickly acertain who is serious about revealing a subject as opposed to who is interested in keeping it swept in whole or in part under the rug. Regards editing per se, that's moot at this point; and you'll observe that I wasn't involved at the moment of slam-down.--Mike18xx 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The war between the West and Islam is happening on every front, the islamists are here too in wikipedia attempting to rewrite history and disguise facts, to all those good people attempting simply to say the truth, keep up the good work! Don't let these brazen liars take over wikipedia!-- † King Richard 08:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Mike18xx requested unprotection of this article at WP:RFP. Are we ready to go with that yet? howcheng {chat} 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled for days. Let's give it a whirl. Pecher ^Talk 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise version

I have posted a compromise version of the article. Hopefully, nobody will protest it now for the alleged insufficient variety or quality of sources. Pecher ^Talk 08:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will. A diff between your version and the last version by Farhansher indicates that both of you put strong emphasis on one side of the matter (and of the sources !), at the expense of the other side. In particular you quote a lot from Lewis (which is not wrong in itself, except when the article starts to look like a long paraphrase), but you conveniently "forget" several sourced historical comments and examples indicating humane / near-equal treatment of Dhimmis (as appearing e.g. in Farhansher's version). As an example, someone who read only your version would not imagine that non-muslims could ever hold high offices in Islamic administrations, even though this apparently happened. Also the comments by Ali (on the the penalty for killing a Dhimmi) are certainly significant.

I think it would be worth pointing out that "Islamic law", which you inaccurately portray as a coherent monolithic entity ("under Islamic law"), actually covered a huge area and many political entities throughout about a millenium and half. Practices have varied enormously from time to time and from place to place. Your version (and Farhansher's) convey the idea that one particular type of practice was the general rule, with minor exceptions here and there. This is just not right.

A synthesis version of the article, including all comments from reasonably consensual sources, is clearly in order ! Anyone agrees ? --Thomas Arelatensis 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I challenged to dispute the article on sources, not on contents. The earlier version of the article is not really Farhansher's; it is a product of other editors. As you can see from the talk page above, Lewis was mentioned as an author with undisputed authority, so an extensive usage of his works is a deliberate step to minimize controversy.

There is much truth to your argument that Islamic law is not monolithic; Sunni Islam alone has four schools of jurisprudence. However, an extensive treatment of the differences between scholars and the evolution of their rulings over time will stretch the article into a monograph. I tried to highlight the points where scholars seem to agree, while noting the major disagreements. Feel free to add other sourced scholarly opinions where you find it necessary.

Similarly, covering all the differences in practice is neither possible, nor desirable. After all, the article is about an Islamic legal concept; it's not a combined history of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc. in Muslim lands. Approaching the article in this fashion will stretch into a couple of more monographs and essentially duplicate the information in other articles.

Will you specify what you mean exactly when you talk about "sourced historical comments and examples indicating humane / near-equal treatment of Dhimmis"? The prior version was rather thin on sourcing. You're certainly right about public offices, but this article, like nearly every article in Wikipedia, is a constant work-in-progress and far from complete. At this point, the article does not say that dhimmis could not hold public offices either. To be accurate on that issue, we must present the views of Islamic scholars prohibiting appointment of non-Muslims to public offices and note the exceptions; Samuel ha-Nagid comes to mind here. There are other issues that remain uncovered at the moment, for example, the prohibition on bearing arms. Again, feel free to add sourced information on that topic. Pecher ^Talk 20:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

about Bat Ye'or

I have read two of her books and was interested more particularly to her treatment of the Ottoman Empire, so I can comment the accuracy of this part only and not the rest of her research, which would be only my impression. From her language, her work tend to be biased but well documented but she seem to jump quickly on conclusion and generalisation from sources that appears to be more restrictive. But overal, I'd qualify her works relevent to the article, if not for her own conclusions at least for the materials she came up with since The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam principal part is the second section(document section) which is impressive (from page 159 to 405), this section contains juristic texts (Muslim) and other relevant records. What is open to critics, it is that she maintains the position and try to support it, more as a lawyer would do, but we can't really discredit the work on this basis, in this type of research this type of literature is generalized and even Lewis isen't exempt of this.

In general my impression of the book is similar to the review of David Thomas published in the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 25, No. 1 (May, 1998), pp. 183-185

More particularly when he writes: The book uncovers details which must challenge the notion that the dhimma was comparatively fair and liberal. But it will also hopefully provoke refinements and refutations. For while it undoubtedly supports a claim, it does not by any means succeed in proving a thesis.

I think this book should be included as source in the article, because it is notable, and it has been reviewed in a numbers of very serious notable journals and the critics haven't been that harsh with her, but since the notability of this work has been more based on the document section, it is that part that should be the center of our attention and not the section with her opinions. Fad (ix) 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of religion

The dhimmi is indeed an early form of freedom of religion. It's quite possibly the first time freedom of religion as a concept was used. As such it's notable and the article should say so. // Liftarn

First, dhimmi is a person, not a form. Secondly, it's your original research. Pecher ^Talk 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

From Freedom_of_religion#Freedom_of_religion_in_History

During history some countries have accepted some form of freedom of worship, though in actual practice that theoretical freedom was limited through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Poland or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.

To take an example, compare the situation of the Sephardi Jews in Spain under Islam and Christianity (see Sephardic#Sephardim_under_Islam and Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain). Or see http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss94.htm "It is true that the concept of dhimmi was quite progressive one when Islam established its hegemony in the world in 7th and 8th century". Seen in a modern context dhimmitude is not much, but in a historical context it was a radical idea. // Liftarn

None of the above responds directly to my argument regaridng original research. Pecher ^Talk 10:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. perhaps you could be more specific in what you are objecting to as I fail to see it. I think you look at it with modern eyes rather than placing it in a historic context. The article also focuses almost entierly on the downside. // Liftarn

We cannot use other articles as a source, and ecumene.org is at best a very dubious source. The topic has been subject of much politicized disputes, and that's another reason to rely on scholarly sources as per WP:RS.

The article is full of unreliable sources, using another one to balance up a terminally POV article can hardly make much of a difference. // Liftarn

After all, it's a nonsensical claim that dhimma was an early form of freedom of religion. Rather, it was an advanced form of religious persecution. As you can see from the "Sources" section, most dhimma insitutions were borrowed from the Byzantian Empire; where do you see a radical idea then? It's rubbish that dhimma radically advanced freedom of religion. To claim so, means to argue that before dhimma people were not allowed to practice religion other than the religion of the ruler, which is, of course, untrue. In the Roman Empire, for example, only Jews in Judea were systematically persecuted, persecution of Christians was sporadic, and other religions were largely left alone. By that standard, dhimma was a huge step backwards, not forward. Pecher ^Talk 10:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it nonsense? As my Latin is a bit rusty perhaps you can give examples and translations of relevant sections of Codex Theodosianus. As far as I can tell it's quite different, for example "It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith." and "Let the course of all law suits and all business cease on Sunday, which our fathers have rightly called the Lord's day, and let no one try to collect either a public or a private debt; and let there be no hearing of disputes by any judges either those required to serve by law or those voluntarily chosen by disputants." (i.e. not respecting that Islam, Judaism and Christianity have different days of rest). That dhimma was a great leap forward in freedom of religion is undisputed. It may not be perfect as it put several incentives to convert to Islam, but there was no forced conversion. The Roman Empire was polytheistic and thus significantly more tolerant. Jews had a special status as they did not have to sacrifice to the emperor, the "persecution" of early Christians was mostly due to that they were no longer seen as Jews, but they still refused loyalty to the emperor. // Liftarn

Had you read the article more carefully, you would have noticed that it cites Codex Theodosianus as a key source of dhimmi laws. Many of its clauses were copied nearly one to one. So, why is it undiputed that "dhimma was a great leap forward in freedom of religion"? In addition, we seem to agree that Roman Empire had been much more tolerant before Christianity became the official religion. So, how can dhimma be a step forward compared to the polytheistic Roman Empire, if it copied the discriminations of the Christian Roman Empire? Pecher ^Talk 12:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that is's given as a source, but no examples are given, i.e. it claims, but don't give any sources. So the claim that it copied the discriminations of the Christian Roman Empire are not substantiated and as far as I can tell there is a major difference, for instance the statement "It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith." is quite far from "Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them in more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.". I'm not comparing apples with grapes. The polutheistic Roman Empire was indeed much freer, but that was both much earlier in time as well as polytheistic. Also it's a difference between having no laws at all and explicitly having laws to guarantee freedom of religion. // Liftarn

The references are at the bottom of the article. As Bernard Lewis masterly put it, (quoting from memory, I may be inaccurate) it's morally and intellectually dishonest to compare your best examples with somebody else's worst examples. The saying you quoted and which is attributed to Muhammad is often used as propaganda, but we must look at what sharia was in reality. To do so, we must see the opinions of Muslim jurists, as well on what they based their opinions on. For example, Koran has many contradictory passages. To deal with such contradictions, Muslim scholars developed a practice of abrogation, i.e. some verses "abrogate" others and only the former are used as basis for rulings. In other words, it's incorrect to pick something from Koran or ahadith and say "hey, this is what Islam teaches." Instead, we must look at how Muslim scholars have interpreted Koran and ahadith. Pecher ^Talk 13:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I added a link that does exactly that[2]. You should read it. // Liftarn

______________

"The dhimmi is indeed an early form of freedom of religion."

Following the same principle we could fairly state that Don Corleone "protection racket" was an early form of "business insurance" or "freedom from risk", right?

You pay and you are free to mind your business, you don't pay you got "problems", rather fair. The question, IMO, is would you like to be "protected"? I mean nowaday, please don't bring on the "improvement" if not death by hanging is an "improvement" compared to death by torture.

This page

Urhhkk, vomit, what a disgusting hate-filled page. Here we read, inter alia that Muslims are fundamentally genocidal fiends who only allow others to live because they are useful. Where can we read that dhimmis are excluded from some taxes as well as subject to some? Where can we read that they were exempted from military service? Where can we read that not every oppression of a minority had anything to do with them being dhimmis? Where can we read that taking the worst things that happened at any place and time and presenting them as the facts of every place and time is a pure distortion? --Zero 12:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your only dispute is with yourself. You first ascribe to the article something that is not in it and then vigorously contest it. "Muslims are fundamentally genocidal fiends..." Where did you find this nonsense outside of your fantasy? "Oppression of a minority..." What about Christians being in a majority in the first several centuries after the Arab conquests? "taking the worst things that happened at any place and time and presenting them as the facts of every place and time" Again, a figment of your imagination. The article describes historical events; try to disprove them if you can. Nowhere does the article say that the same happened always and everywhere; it's just your invention, nothing else. Pecher ^Talk 12:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zero that as it is the article is "taking the worst things that happened at any place and time and presenting them as the facts of every place and time". For instance it failes to mention that non-Muslims did not have to pay the zakat (legally prescribed alms). Also the repair of religious building was allowed, something the article denies.[3][4] There was no ghettos, no restrictions on professions et.c.[5] The dhimmi system not only protected the minority religions from the majority, but also from external threats and from other minority religions. // Liftarn

It's ridiculous to try to put into the article everything that was not required for dhimmis. Contrary to what you say, the article does say that dhimmis were allowed to repair religious buildings, while the source that you have provided, which is not a scholarly, but a popular Q&A book, does not not say it. Pecher ^Talk 14:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In theory, Jews were not allowed to construct new synagogues. In practice, there was hardly a single Jewish community in the whole Muslim world that didn't build new synagogues. And the same goes for Christians and churches. The article lies about the facts. --05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actively editing this page, but I have a couple of suggestions to offer. Those who know more history than I can use them as you see fit. First: to achieve neutrality it's better to not remove information but to add countervailing information. Second: There seems to have been substantial variation over time and place. I expect the nature of dhimmitude in Constantinople in 1600 was different from that in Persia in the ninth century. Might it be useful to organize some formatting around time or place? Finally, I'd like to say that given the difficult nature of the topic, everyone seems to be doing pretty well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RV

WEll well well , this page has become a hoardingboard for hate mongering . Dude , everybody , This is supposed to be what Islam says about Dhimmi , not what a bunch of anti Islam scholars have claimed about it . If that whats supposed to be the content of the article , It should be named "Claims about Dhimmi from outside Islam" . AS I said before , all that phobic stuff should be present on some authentic Islamic site , thats whats gonna make it Islamic concept of Dhimma . Unless that happens , this is just hatemongering , no matter even if its sourced . WE are talking about Islam , not what a bunch of people outside it think , publish all that controversial stuff , & earn their living from it . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Both views can be presented, but as you have noted the article is currently (still) very one eyed. I hope it can be worked out. I have tried to make a few improvements, but there is still much to do. I hope you will stay and help with it. // Liftarn

Well I am trying to say the same thing . The information that is in my version is available on Islamic sites...sites that are run by authentic scholars with degrees in Islam . The other version comes from people like Bat yeor , who ...everybody knows what they do . I had pointed out this earliar that if the inclusion of their POV is that important , they should be mentioned in a separate section . Their perception/prejudices/conjectures have got nothing to do with Islam . Until proved otherwise , their views should be mentioned as their views , not Islam . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you both try to stop reverting (currently you both are on your second revers so soon 3RR will kick in anyway) I'll first try to merge the two version and then we can see what can be done to fix the POV problems. OK? // Liftarn

Just like a sharia court, Farhansher does not admit non-Muslim testimony. Pecher ^Talk 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep personal attacks out of this. We all know your sources are very biased and one-eyed so please try to work together to fix the article. // Liftarn

When you read at least one of these sources, I may take your comments about them more seriously. Pecher ^Talk 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It can't be denied that this article lacks the cite your source tone. Footnotes at the bottom of the articles are sources and not established facts, like every footnotes. This article should not only maintain the sources in the notes but also in the paragraphs where the positions are presented, since without this, this article could be qualified as POV. Fad (ix) 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"This is supposed to be what Islam says about Dhimmi...": No, as befits an encyclopedia, this is supposed to synthesize the views of noted scolars on the subject regarding all relevant aspects. Should we restrict Islam to define concepts like Dhimmi or Djihad and Christendom to tell us about the crusades exclusively? The imposition is contrary to wikipedia's conception. --tickle me 19:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No meta-izing in the article

We really can't have things in the article like, "Notice the lack of Muslim sources." Taking no position on the merits, I'm commenting it out; it's inappropriate to include commentary on the article within the article itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Maimonides

The Freedom of religion and forced conversions section has a mention of Maimonides converting to Islam at the age of 13. This is not supported by history where the Jews of Cordoba were offered conversion, exile or death and many of them, including Maimonides and his family, chose exile. The entry saying he converted and it was later declared void is erroneous and was removed and replaced with historical fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs) 21:19, February 22, 2006

Nope. The information in the article is exactly as per the cited source: Bernard Lewis The Jews of Islam p.100. Pecher ^Talk 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically, every other historical source is wrong as well as the Maimonides entry on Wikipedia. If you have the source, please edit the Maimonides entry to reflect that he did not flee Cordoba as recorded in other places but instead stayed and converted. So how exactly do I enter other references to contradict Lewis's statement?

I've re-added the Lewis entry and noted that it is from him and that other sources disagree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs)

It won't work this way. You must cite your sources appropriately if you wish them to be included. Pecher ^Talk 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the Jewish Timeline Encyclopedia and will use that as a source and put my changes back in I've also added a History of Jewish Philosophy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs)

totalydiputed

Somebody taged this articel as a hate site. I dont have time to bother with this, they can have it. as is now, the Muslim haters have free hand on the dhimmi and terrorist article, since not many Muslim editors have the time for it. --Striver 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the definition of Dhimmi is incorrect, then please place a source onto the page that shows this dispute. I learned how to do this yesterday with my dispute of Lewis and conversion. What parts of the definitions placed here do you disagree with?

Khaybar's Invasion

This article is too anti-Islamic, and virtually uses only non-Islamic sources. I have added some information on the invasion of Khaybar by the Muslims. Al-Mubarakpuri's "The Sealed Nectar" is widely recognized by the Muslim world...certainly more than Bernard Lewis or Bat Ye'or is.

The article (especially its tone) is very unfair to the Islamic perspective. I believe this violates Wikipedia's NPOV. If the fact that Muslims invaded Khaybar must be mentioned, the reasons must also be mentioned. Otherwise, it gives the false impression that Muslims simply invaded Khaybar to turn them into dhimmis, which isn't the case.

Byzantine and Persian influence

The article mentions how these two empires treated religious minorities. What does that have to do with Islam? Nothing. The reason why Muslim jurists did not mention the "sources of dhimmi regulations" from those empires is because they weren't sources in the first place. Besides being untrue, it is irrelevant to this article. This is yet another ridiculous attempt to degrade Islam as much as possible.

Bernard Lewis and the Pact of Umar

The article claims that Bernard Lewish doubts the authenticity of the Pact of Umar. Could anyone provide a source from Lewis for this??

Bat Ye’or's credibility

This is not a credible article at all. Most of it is based on the writings of Bat Ye’or, a Jewish author who clearly and extremely is biased towards Islam. This is a joke.

The fact that she was born in Egypt and lived under Muslim rule makes here a good spokesperson for people who do live under Muslim rule. The fact that she's a woman and a Jew makes her standing all the better to show how Non-Muslims, Jews and Women are treated in a Muslim world. If your going to discount every Jew who writes about Islam then your just being biased against any source that might say what you don't want said and want to control the topic rather than report on actual events and attitudes Mdinowitz 01:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or never lived as a dhimmi. In fact she never lived in an Islamic state (your statement is incorrect). If her experiences in Egypt were bad, that makes her more liable to be biased, not more liable to be unbiased. This article should be based on the work of critical scholarship, not on the writings of activists. --Zero 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is such a lame argument. Does everyone thast had some bad expiriance is not able to be objective in her writing ? Zeq 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It could go both ways. The conservative course would be to drop Ye'or and find someone else who echoes her opinion.--Dr.Worm 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sign your comments

Folks, please sign your comments on this page. The easiest way is to put ~~~~ at the end of your comment. --Zero 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have added the tag, that we are from one side or the other, there is no question that this article in its current form do not conform to the NPOV policy. People have to understand that sourcing something does not equal to prove and present an argument as an established fact. While I think I will regret my involvement since it will possibly drag me in a conflict, I believe I had to do that. Fad (ix) 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jizya vs. zakat

There is a popular propagandistic canard that while dhimmis were obliged to pay jizya, they were "exempted" from zakat. The canard totally misses the whole point of jizya, namly that it was a tax paid by non-Muslims to Muslims, while zakat was a tax paid by Muslims... yes, also for the benefit of Muslims. Lumping the two taxes together is meaningless, as they were altogether different institutions. It is therefore wrong to say that dhimmis were "exempt" from zakat because they paid an altogether different tax serving a different purpose. Within their own communities, dhimmis often paid their own communal taxes: for example, Jewish tzdaka - a precursor of Muslim zakat. These taxes can, in principle, be compared to zakat, but jizya certainly cannot. Pecher ^Talk 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If we ignore your dubious claim about that it was a tax "for the benefit of Muslims" we have still that non-Muslims payed one tax and Muslims another so thay did had to pay one tax, but didn't have to pay another. // Liftarn

Zakat is a religeous(ie self imposed) tax. Jizya is demanded with the dhimmi's(and thier familys) remaining rights as hostage. Hypnosadist 12:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dubious claim, it's logically sound if it is indeed correct that Muslims payed the Zakat and instead the Non-Muslims payed the Jizya (or a derivative thereof); there simply cannot be exemption for the non-Muslims if non-Muslims did not also pay the Zakat and Muslims did not also pay the jizya.

Military service

Another frequently heard propaganda stunt is that dhimmis were "exempted" from military service. The trick implies a modern-day POV and completely ignores the fact that dhimmis could not do the fighting because they were prohibited from bearing arms altogether, hardly a privilege. The major propaganda thrust here is the implication that compulsory military service is a burden, which may be true today, but was not at the time in question. Quite the opposite, in the Middle Ages in Muslim lands, just like in Europe, military service was reserved for the nobility and carried with it a privileged social status. To say that dhimmis were "exempted" from military service is like saying the same about European serfs. Pecher ^Talk 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There were cases where non-Muslims served in the defence forces and then they did not have to pay the tax for the support of the troops. // Liftarn

It is complete nonsense that being forced to serve in the army was a privilege. In times of war (very often) it was nearly a death sentence. It was also very disruptive to communities to have most of the young men taken away for years. They couldn't go home on weekends like today. Actually this exemption was one of the circumstances that helped Jewish communities to remain intact for centuries. As for "reserved for the nobility", that is also completely wrong. It was only the officer class that was drawn from the nobility. Do you think they dug latrines when they could get peasants to do it? Anyway the nobility was far too small to raise an army from. There was an instructive instance in Palestine about 1840 when the Egyptian ruler Muhammad Ali abolished the exemption on Jews being drafted into the army and also abolished the jizya tax. The Jews were extremely distressed and petitioned to have the tax and military exemption reinstated. This is well documented. --Zero 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. If fighting was a death sentence at times of war, how did it happen that Arabs did not disappear from the face of earth after so many conquests? If Jews survived thans to the "exemption" from the military service, why did Christians and Zoroastrians whither away? The officer class was indeed drawn from the nobility when the officer class appeared, which was not in the 7th century. The backbone of western European armies in the Middle Ages were the knights and their number was deemed quite sufficient; some say that in France there were more knights than necessary. After the Islamic conquests, the relationship between Muslims and dhimmis strikingly paralleled the relationship between feidals and serfs: armed Muslims were the ruling class, while disarmed dhimmis were the ruled. As part of his modernizing reforms, Muhammad Ali established a completely different army: a modern, regular army instead of its feudal Mamluk predecessor, and those were not only the Jews whom he began conscripting, but rank-and-file Muslims too. Here, one can only add that some Muslim scholars allowed to use dhimmis in the army "like one would use dogs" without sharing booty with them. Pecher ^Talk 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"It was also very disruptive to communities to have most of the young men taken away for years." Again, you have completely confused the army as it was in the Middle Ages with the regular army. Young men are taken away for years only when there is a regular army and conscription, which is a relatively new, European invention, introduced as late as the 18th century. Pecher ^Talk 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One more modern perspective: "being forced to serve in the army". In earlier times the dilemma was not to serve or not to serve, for there was no service in our contemporary understanding, as I have pointed out above. The dilemma was: either you fight and rule those you conquer with the obvious risk of being killed in the process or you do not fight and submit to the more fearless folks. Islamic law made it encumbent upon Muslims to choose the former option, and there are no indications they were dissatisfied. The situation changed, of course, when Muslims became the dominant majority. By that time, those were no longer all Muslims, but rather a substratum within the Muslim community, like Mamluks, who became the dominant warrior class. Pecher ^Talk 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with every syllable you wrote. This article is a basket case. At the moment the only thing it would be useful for is as a textbook example of Islam-bashing. --Zero 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing with syllables does not make much sense; it is with the meaning they carry that we must address our agreement or objection. That said, claiming that the jirza and zakat are comparable is akin to claiming that Negroes were on a socially equal plane with Caucasians in the Americas, save in only that Caucasians were generally expected to pay their taxes in money and Negroes in manual labour.

Agreement on two basics

I think Pecher and Aminz agree on a couple of basic things: That the article is more easily balanced by adding information than by taking it away; and that material needs to be cited. Comparing two recent versions, [6], I see these points of disagreement:

• "Dhimmi's were also given the choice of serving in the army rather than paying the jizya." This needs to be supported by citation, but it doesn't seem implausible to me. Maybe it could be left in with a request for citation while Aminz looks it up.
• "Subdued" versus "humbled." If there's disagreement about how this should be translated, we need to quote from specific cited translations.
• The opening paragraph of Status of dhimmis. The two different version are not that far apart. Rather than reverting back and forth, it might be better to use the talk page to workshop some compromise language.
• I'm not sure 'Shi'a peculiarities' is the best section title. As far as content goes, if it's supported by the references cited, it should be kept. If other references support a different understanding, they should be added. For each, and as a general rule, Aminz is correct that, if references say more than one thing, we need to make clear who is saying what.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is really hard for me to discuss with Pecher. Why? Because, to my mind, he has some incorrect information about Islam and tries to push his POV. For example, We read in the article:

"Dhimmis were allowed to live, and even prosper, according to historian Clifford Bosworth, largely because they practiced valuable trades such as doctors or performed functions such as usury that Muslims could not perform for religious reasons.^[7]"

I added "However, it should be noted that Muslims never had religous prohibitions of being doctors. " but Pecher reverted it without even discussing it. My mother is a doctor. Throughout history many Muslims have been doctors (e.g. Ibn Sina) Muhammad himself is reported to have been interested in medicine. Now, Pecher wants to teach me that Muslims are prohibited to be doctors.

Another example, in the article we read: "Shi'a Islam devotes much attention to the issues of ritual purity — tahara. Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis — so that contact with them defiles a Muslim. In Persia, where Shi'ism is dominant, these beliefs brought about restrictions that aimed at limiting physical contact between Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis were prohibited from attending public baths; they were not allowed to go outside in rain or snow, ostensibly because some impurity could be washed from them upon a Muslim."

"Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis — so that contact with them defiles a Muslim." 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(which includes people of the book for example). Anyway, there is a story behind this verse and how it was used to justify the ritual impurity of polytheist.

Pecher send the website of Ali al-Sistani for me, saying that Kafirs are unclean. But who says that Kafirs are Non-Muslims?!!! Some 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. Again, Pecher wants to teach me my own religion. I only asked Pecher that when something is quoted from Lewis for example, he writes "Lewis says X is so" instead of "X is so". But he doesn't agree. I have had a lot of discussions with Non-Muslims and was always feeling comfortable but don't feel comfortable with Pecher. I hope that our mediators can help. Thanks --Aminz 23:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"...largely because they practiced valuable trades such as doctors or performed functions such as usury that Muslims could not perform for religious reasons."

I think this part means that they were tolerated for two reasons: One, because they had valuable skills such as medicine; and two, becuase they did things that Muslims wouldn't do, like lend money at interest. It isn't meant to imply that Muslims couldn't be doctors. Maybe that should be re-written to be more explicit. And of course, the passage makes clear who is saying it.

As far as the passage about uncleaness, it seems to be noted that it is Lewis who is saying this. If others are saying something else, let's cite and quote them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, I can see that this sentence can be read in two different ways. As Tom said, the sentence should be re-written. My reading of the text is also a possible one; But Pecher reverted my edit saying that it is "twisting of sourced material"!! Another thing, I changed the name of city "meshed" to "mashhad" which is more proper. It is called by persians as "Mashhad". I am sorry if Pecher considers this to be "twisting the sourced materials". Why did he revert this change?????? All I ask Pecher,at the moment, is to write "... say X" rather than "X is so". --Aminz 00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a couple of incremental changes would be accepted by everyone. How about if you reword the paragraph to make the two reasons clear, maybe as

Dhimmis were allowed to live, and even prosper, according to historian Clifford Bosworth, largely because they practiced trades that Muslims valued, such as medicine, or because they performed functions that Muslims could not perform for religious reasons, such as usury.^[8]

This does say "according to Bosworth", and also makes clear that Muslims held doctors in high regard. It preserves Pecher's main point, so I think it might be okay with everyone.

Surely changing the spelling to 'Mashhad' will not be controversial.

And again, everyone should use the edit summaries to describe the edit, and not for commentary. Similarly, as much as possible the talk page should be used to talk about the article, and not about the editors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I agree with the change you suggested and your comments. Should we apply the change? --Aminz 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"exempted from..."

Disputed edit

1. "...and exempted from military service and from the zakat tax..." Palmiro, you know that it's about the wording. Exempt implies a favour or prerogative, while it was an act of discrimination: dhimmis were not trusted. To make it more palatable to you: They were not trusted as it happens with Arabs in the IDF, ok? Do you earnestly want to sell the "exemption" as intended benevolence? "Not admitted to military service" or "Not allowed to serve" is correct.

It is my understanding that Dhimmitude was originally modeled after Persian contracts with conquered people. In these cases military was offered in echange for submission to Persian rule. Your contention that non muslims would be treated with suspicion seems reasonable. I also could immagine that muslim rulers would not be keen on training people in warfare wou could revolt against them. However, all of these explanations are conjecture (this argument also applies to people who seek to show Dhimmitude in a positive light). It is best to keep with the facts. We know that they were exemt from military service, but we cannot say why, so it is best to stop there.--Dr.Worm 08:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2. "Some restrictions sometimes imposed on...". If your imputation is true, it isn't reflected in the article at all, cf. Distinctive_clothing:

• Muslim rulers often prohibited dhimmis from wearing certain types of clothing
• Regulations on dhimmi clothings varied frequently to please the whims of the ruler.
• Ottoman sultans were similarly diligent and inventive in regulating the clothings of their non-Muslim subjects.
• Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels [...] Damanhuri, rector of Al-Azhar University, summed up the consensus of Islamic jurists: “Neither Jew, nor Christian should ride a horse, with or without saddle...” [...] European travelers passing through the Middle East in 18th and 19th centuries left ample evidence of careful enforcement of prohibitions on horseback riding.
• An exception to the right for personal freedom [...] was the practice of enslavement of young non-Muslim boys for the ruler’s slave army. The practice goes back to Abbasids [...] The Ottoman Empire practiced a similar system...

Most restrictions were imposed most of the time, that was a rule, not an exception, though this certainly happend. So please reflect that in your wording. --tickle me 16:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the military service was an exemption. Albert Hourani refers to this in his Arab Thought in the Liberal Age, if memory serves, pointing out that Christian citizens opposed the abolition of the dhimma and preferred to keep paying the jizya in return for the exemption from military service. Ditto in Egypt under Muhammad Ali, I believe. See also Zero's comments above (i.e. this has already been addressed here on the talk page).

Regulations on clothing were sometimes applied and sometimes not. For example, Lyons and Jackson in their Saladin: the politics of the holy war refer to occasional decisions by Saladin to impose such regulations which were on a number of occasions revoked soon afterwards because they led to mistreatment of dhimmis by Muslims. If Saladin was occasionally imposing and then revoking these regulations, it suggests that at his time they were not generally applied. Similarly, European travellers in Syria in the eighteenth and nineteenth century refer specifically to the ebforcement of the ban on riding horseback in Damascus, which would seem to suggest that this was an exception in the region. The only sensible conslusion is that these restrictions were sometimes opposed but sometimes not. You cannot in this case use your phrasing which suggests that these restrictions applied generally as a feature of the dhimma. Palmiro | Talk 17:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We must avoid mingling the provisions of sharia with their actual application. Even if some restrictions were not always followed to the letter, sharia provisions still remained on the books. It is sheer speculation to infer from the memoirs of European travellers related to prohibitions on horseback riding that distinctive clothing provisions were not followed at that time. It has already been discussed above that Muhammad Ali introduced conscription for both Muslims and non-Muslims, so it's inappropriate to say that he abolished some "exemption". Pecher ^Talk 18:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment at all. The dhimma status varied from time to time in its applicaton, and sometimes dhimmis were the object of sumptuary laws, sometimes not. What "tickle me" objected to was saying that these laws were sometimes applied, which is manifestly the case. Muhammad Ali introduced conscription for Muslims and non-Muslims where non-Muslims had previously been exempt. That means abolishing an exemption. As for your strange remark that "It is sheer speculation to infer from the memoirs of European travellers related to prohibitions on horseback riding that distinctive clothing provisions were not followed at that time.", please note that I didn't infer anything of the sort. Palmiro | Talk 19:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see I failed to address one of Tickle me's points above. To claim that military service was a privilege (and that its non-imposition on dhimmis was a dsiability) is simply ludicrous, as Zero has explained above. If that was the case one might have expected the dhimmis to campaign for military service to be applied for them instead of resisting proposals to apply it. Also, there is evidence that Christians did fight for Muslim powers at various points in history. Palmiro | Talk 19:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to understand your comment either. My point was that while the application of dhimma status varied over place and time, which is obvious, the sharia provisions remained the same with some variations between different schools of law, as well as between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, which is addressed in the article, where applicable. As far as Muhammad Ali's reforms are concerned, he instituted conscriptions for Muslims too; in other words, there was no compulsory military service for Muslims before his reforms. Pecher ^Talk 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Systematic conscription on the European manner only came to the Middle East in the nineteenth century; before then Muslims, but not Christians or other non-Muslims, were liable to be required to fight for their monarch. So your point is irrelevant. While I am not an expert on the sumptuary laws, the article as currently drafted appears to suggest that these were impositions by particular rulers or fatwas by particular scholars, not standard and generalised rules of shari`a; as I have indicated, it is in any case clear that they were applied sometimes, not always, and that I was right to correct the article to that effect. Palmiro | Talk 19:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no basis for your claim that sumptuary laws were applied sometimes rather than usually, while occasionally being allowed to lapse. Although rulers indeed played with the distinctive clothings as they pleased, there was a consensus among Muslim scholars that such vestimentary distinctions must be in place. I have changed the wording to make it clearer. Before Muhammad Ali's reforms, the Egyptian army consisted of the Mamluks, who were a hereditary military class; lay Muslims did not have to fight at war. Pecher ^Talk 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"To claim that military service was a privilege (and that its non-imposition on dhimmis was a dsiability) is simply ludicrous": Are all things necessarily either good or evil? Throughout history and cultures military service has been seen as a burden and a privilege ...or a source of income to mercenaries. While you're probably right positing that dhimmis were not eager to serve, it represented an act of discrimation all the same. Do you assume that they didn't perceive and resent that aspect? Even if you don't, that aspect is encyclopedically relevant.

"Also, there is evidence that Christians did fight for Muslim powers at various points in history": Indeed, there is - now, was it a rule or the exception? Your careful phrasing seems to indicate the latter. I posit that the rule was for Muslims to serve: Mamluks and Janissaries were (made) Muslims after all; nobody denies that converts were accepted and trusted.

"they were applied sometimes, not always": Is sometimes the only alternative to always? It's still about whether it's been the rule or the exception. In my understanding "the rule" equals to "mostly", not "sometimes". --tickle me 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I really doubt that dhimmis resented not being enlisted into feudal armies. I'm not aware of any evidence of them seeking to fight for Muslim rulers and being refused, whereas there is evidence of them (a) fighting for Muslim powers, and (b) rejecting moves to abolish dhimmi status because they valued the exemption.

2. This was certainly an exception, but I dislike your insinuation that I was trying to let it be understood otherwise.

3. Can we then please try and establish which it was, the rule or the exception?Palmiro | Talk 11:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, I think saying that "... were not required to do military service and from paying the zakat tax" is a fact and should be included (not saying exempt). We can then present the ideas of the both sides somewhere within the article. If you like, you can compare the amount of zakat tax and jizyah. How is that? --Aminz 01:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds OK. Palmiro | Talk 11:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. That seem to be an accurate statement.--Dr.Worm 08:31, 2 May 2006 (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 02:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

radical shortening

I just shortened the article radically, so we can start anew. Please only make short changes at a time, so every single dispute can be discussed here. There's no point in exchanging these totally different two versions over and over again. Raphael1 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this would not work. In essence you have deleted sourced content that existed here for a long time. You want to make corrections and edit: go ahead but don;t delete a good article just because you disagree with part of it's content. Zeq 06:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)