Jump to content

Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Original Research Tag

I believe we should add the original research tag to this article because:

1. In my POV, One but not the only disputed passage is for example the following(in the "Sources of dhimma" part)

"The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against the People of the Book until they pay the jizya head tax and are humbled:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I disagree with usage of the word "humbled" and taking this passage out of the context(the first sentence does not mention the context of the verse and to my mind contains original research). There are many disputed passages.

2. For the same reason that the article is tagged to be totally disputed. (Here I mean, while we are not sure if the article is neutral and factual, we have the tag, likewise, when we are not sure if the article contains original research, we should have the tag.)

Thanks --Aminz 23:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, can you please add the tag to the article. The tag just says "the article MAY contain ..." which is my position. Were I aware of this tag, I would have added it to the article long ago. thanks --Aminz 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind. it is not necessary to add the tag now (better have more discussion first) . --Aminz 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If the dhimma are persecuted under sharia then it cannot surely be a matter of early religious tolerance, except where they were tolerated to change by the circumstance. While it is true that intolerance was as much a fact of other religions and states, such situations were not immutable and intrinsic to the society over time. The placement of the dhimma in the context of the sharia gives the bigotry permanent substance and produces a force for the conversion of the unwilling. --Jas 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Wrong Article

Many things in the article are wrong and at least written in very wrong way. My guess is that the article is written by someone who hate Islam and want to make propoganda against Islam. --- Faisal 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see both neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed. --Aminz 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that they mixed diversion/sins of Muslims with the rules of Islam given by Quran and Sunnah. The article should be written according to what is allowed by Quran, Sunnah. What happened after 200 or 500 years should be mention separately or NOT at all. See according to Islam one cannot tell lie, now If I have to write an article with name "Islam and Lie" and I start saying that early Muslims never used to tell lie but then after 8 century they starting telling lie. Instead of saying what Quran and Sunnah say that is telling lie is a greatest sin according to Islam and not at all acceptable Then I am simply misguiding people, which is exactly this article is doing. Why you want to confuse the reader. If you want to write information which is not allowed according to Quran and Sunnah then makes a separate section on Histroy and Dhimmi and write you propaganda there. In this article please write what is allowed according to Islam and What Quran and Sunnah says (full stop). I know that you media (Cnn/Fox/BBC...) and Govt. has polluted your mind and you really believe that there were force conversions etc. May be there are force conversion by some "evil" Muslims (may be there are also in Christianity) but the real question is that if that was allowed according to Quran and Sunnah. (It is not allowed) If you really hate Islam and confuse reader then continue the way you are doing. Otherwise, limit that article to Quran and Sunnah (and may be to first four Chaliph called Rashidun) ONLY. I will rewrite the whole article after my exams on 28th May. This article is simply not acceptable and a big mess... ---- Faisal 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I look forward to your contribution to this collaborative process. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Tom Harrison Talk 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Islam is also a religion in the real world, and the way it is practised is relevant to articles about it; that practices carried out in the name of Islam may in fact contravene the precepts of Islam is something that can be mentioned, bearing in mind first of all that those practices are nevertheless relevant to the question under discussion, secondly the need for reliable sources, and thirdly the fact that there are many different interpretations of the shar3i requirements in different spheres. Palmiro | Talk 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I write research papers where one cannot say anything without having good references (no original research). I will like do same here and but after my exams. regards --- Faisal 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No I am NOT agree with what Palmiro is saying. Yes! Islam is the religion in the real world but it was not pactice fully all the time. (For example there is NO Islamic Sunni state nowadays). So We will quote only early Islam (when it was followed fully Rashidun) beside discussing Quran and Sunnah in the main article and leave rest of things out of the article. You can create seperate article may be, were you mention histroy when people are doing things AGAINST Islam/Quran/Sunnah. --- Faisal 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No, we won't. Islam is not only a theological system, but according to the din wa daula principle inherently a social and political system as well. It's impact on society always we'll be a subject of this article. "it was not pactice fully all the time": That reality didn't coincide with the numerous Islamic factions over the times is mentioned and is to be mentioned when describing the reality of Islam in the world. We're not here to describe the ideals of Islamic theology disregarding of implementation and execution. And we certainly won't attain to wahhabi interpretation as you suggest. --tickle me 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not good. Why you want to mention things that were AGAINST Quran and Sunnah. And not only mention them but MIX them in the main article so that no one can understand the TRUE message of Islam. Why you cannot separate these two things, so that if the reader has to know what Islam says he can understand it clearly. Why you cannot mention history when people had done things AGAINST Islam separately? I think that by reading the current article a new user will say Quran and Sunnah was wrong istead of condomning the act of few misguided people. BTW I am not a wahabi. However, I will gather support by telling all the Muslims on wikipedia and around me (not member of wikipedia), if I am not allowed to correct it myself. ---- Faisal 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As hard as it may be for you to believe, Wikipedia does not exist to promote the 'true message of Islam'. If that's what you want to do, there are plenty of other websites where you can do this. --- 24.6.237.202 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"However, I will gather support by telling all the Muslims on wikipedia and around me (not member of wikipedia), if I am not allowed to correct it myself." What is this, some kind of threat? No matter what the Quran says Islamic peoples should and shouldn't do, what they did and have done has happened and no amount of propoganda will change that. This article isn't a debate over what the Quran says, in fact, it isn't a debate at all. It's factual information about what actually happened. If you don't like it then that's fine, but stop trying to rewrite history to make it something that you are more accepting of. Stop playing the "religion card" and don't threaten the web site.

Pact of Omar information needs to be included

A link to the [Pact of Omar]article and references to it as the source of Dhimmi status must be included once this edit war is completed--Dr.Worm 07:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Read again. It's there.Timothy Usher 08:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see it! Sorry about that. My fault for using the anglicized spelling of Omar.--Dr.Worm 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=51648639&oldid=51615364 for the changes I have made.

The fact tag was added to intro since in Farhansher's edit, the literal meaning of "Dhimmi" was "protected" and in Pecher's was "tutelage". This was reflected in my edit summaries. Pecher removed this.

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

was changed to

"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. They had to pay a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "

Because if one looks closely, he could see an implicit unsourced (p => q) in the first sentence. Again this was reflected in my edit summaries.

Section title "==== Aleged Humiliation of dhimmis====" vs "==== Humiliation of dhimmis===="

The sub-titles should not pursuade the reader to any position as the title of the articles should not. Readers can read the text and end up in whatever conclusion they want.

I added the fact tag was added to "Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will" since it talks about "Islamic Law". We have 5 schools of Islamic Laws. This sentence is general and unreferenced.

Thanks --Aminz 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Killed "Humiliation" section

It struck me that 1) everything here could justifiably appear in another section 2) points in other sections also fell under "humiliation" 3) the section title was disputed with no adequate solution - it's better to keep them material and objective - if they're being humiliated during taxation, then this belongs in Taxation, if they're being humilated on the road, this belongs in Travel. However, I'm not clear that my rearrangement is the right solution. Hack away.Timothy Usher 09:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If humiliation is importain to the status of a dhimmi, then it seems importaint to highilt the fact in it's own section as long as there is no redundency.--Dr.Worm 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanded "Humiliation" section

The common complaint that this article is too critical of Islam can be addressed in part by relying more on Muslim sources. I have added quotes from Muslim scholars to this section, concerning the jizya payment rituals . This adds weight to the claim that 'many Muslim scholars' advocated humiliation. The quotes are taken from Bostom and Bat Ye'or, but that is only because these are the authors who have gathered citations translated into English from Muslim sources. Eagleswings 12:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Section arrangement

I don't get how the "Marriage" and "Travel" sections are anymore "Social and Psychological" than "Legal". I accept that there might be a higher-level arrangement of sections, but I'm not satisfied that the current (or former) one makes much sense.Timothy Usher 09:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your recent rearrangements, I feel that such a comprehensive step on contended issues is unwarranted. Not to engage in edit wars again, I'd prefer you to rather go back to Aminz' version (with which I don't agree either necessarily), applying one of the many changes you intend afterwards, so we can deal with it item by item. Best, however, would be to just revert, so issues with Aminz can be dealt with on talk first. When that is settled, we should move on. --tickle me 10:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I agree that there were many problems with it. Let's work on addressing them. Done, although preserving some of the edits since then. I'm not sure the currect version is great, but things like humiliation of Dhimmis on the street simply didn't belong in "travel." I want to make sure the article has some coherence, and looking at it fresh today, I'm just not confident that my changes helped in this regard.Timothy Usher 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Freedom of Religion"

It's absurd to call any aspect of dhimmitude "Freedom of Religion." Were Muslims able to practice their religion only out of public view, mosques rising no higher than churches, no new mosques built, and all this in exchange for a special tax, would we call it "freedom of religion"? I think not.Timothy Usher 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a title that you find more descriptive. Pecher Talk 08:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already changed it to "Forced Conversion", but the last two paragraphs have nothing to do with forced conversions (or with religious freedom!).
What about merging "Dhimmis had the right to choose their own religious leaders.." and what follows with "Rituals" in a new section called "Restrictions on Religious Practice"? Just an idea.Timothy Usher 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging the two paragraphs with the "Rituals" section is a good idea. I'm not sure "Restrictions on Religious Practice" is the best we can come up with, but something along those lines should work. Pecher Talk 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" Humiliation

Alleged...by whom? Let's see, we have:

That would seem a pretty strong case of alleging to me. In the case of Sahih Muslim, the purported source is Muhammad himself.

Perhaps you have some reason to doubt that such humilation occured?Timothy Usher 06:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My argument there was that the subtitle should be NPOV no matter if they are correct or not.

As to the Hadith, Timothy did you read the Hadiths from number 5380, the beginning of the chapter? e.g. 5382 reads:

"Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When the Jews offer you salutations, tome of them say as-Sam-u-'Alaikum (death be upon you). You should say (in response to it): Let it be upon you."?

Please read Hadiths from 5380-5390. --Aminz 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read these before. What have they to do with the one cited?Timothy Usher 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


As you could see some of the people of the Book used to greet with "death be upon you"(as-Sam-u-'Alaikum) instead of "peace be upon you". In this situation they have told to "Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you". If a Muslim starts with "peace be upon you" he may be replied back by "death be upon you" while if Muslim starts second he can reply "and upon you too" in response to "death be upon you". I may not be offended if one greets me with "death be upon you" but we should then see what would be the reaction of a typical Arab at the time of Muhammad in such a situation. The solution suggested by Muhammad is "Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you". --Aminz 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem does not seem to be that the facts are in doubt, so a fact hedge is the wrong solution. It sounds like humiliation to me, and it looks well-sourced. What do you think we should call it?Timothy Usher 07:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to separate what Islam (Qur'an and Sunna) say about Dhimmis from how Muslims in reality treated them. Moreover the context of commandments should be taken into account. --Aminz 07:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what the article is doing now: it describes the status of dhimmis according to the Islamic law and then shows how the Islamic legal requirements were implemented in practice, whether in breach or in observance. Please read the article, Aminz, before making any suggestions. Pecher Talk 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If there was in fact a different treatment in reality, during the times discussed, or in some other period we should also discuss, then let's add it with a source. But "Alleged" isn't the right solution, unless you're saying that none of this took place (?). Instead, add facts on the other side. That's my suggestion, at least.Timothy Usher 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I am afraid I can neither agree with your argument nor with the sentence "Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will". The story as I can see is that treatment of dhimmis were very much developed later. The article is clear on this matter. Timothy, "Islam" is nothing but a series of interpretations of Islam. "God" is nothing but our conception of God. It is the usage of the words that shape the meanings of the words. The interpretation of Abu Yusuf: "Abu Yusuf, however, advises against the mistreatment of dhimmis during jizya collection, saying that "they should be treated with leniency" or interpretations of modern Islamic scholars (influenced by Human Rights or whatsoever) is/will be one among many other interpretations of Islam and these all together form "Islam". Islam is not to be searched in the books. History is forming and defining what Islam is. Another part of my argument is that the actions and commandments should not be understood in the abstract and isolated from their context. (For example, the above example on "Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you") I am not trying to say that dhimmis were not humiliated but am asking for a fuller understanding of the case. --Aminz 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that sentence. On its face, it seems rather broad. Does all major interpretations of Islamic law stipulate as such? If so, it would seem appropriate to say so, as in Apostasy in Islam.
I agree with your general point that when discussing "Islam", we must root it in history, such that we are not discussing what Islam "is" in an abstract sense.
In the hadith at issue, it seems clear, as you say, that this was not meant to lay a foundation for Dhimmitude, but merely a statement regarding an ongoing dispute about the way Muhammad and his followers were being greeted (rightly or wrongly). It was cited much later by al-Kafrawi in his hateful screed, which is why it appears in the text. Is there a history of this hadith in Dhimmi-related jurisprudence? We don't know, but that's a good question to ask.
It strikes me that institutionalized humiliation of Dhimmis as a minority must have come later than Dhimmitude as a primarily tributary relationship, if only because it'd be hard to sustain without a very significant Muslim demographic presence, and because it would seem to undermine the original purpose of collecting revenue from more numerous clients.
I don't really know enough to effectively address it. But I suspect the solution is to expand the article with more facts from reputable sources, so as to root its claims more firmly in time and place, and balance the picture where the facts support it.
Pecher has done his homework, and has a point of view. Some other editors look upon it and feel that there is something unfair here, but haven't done the work (nor have I, as my general statements make clear), and so are stuck pasting fact tags when we don't really know the facts (a POV tag is more appropriate in such cases), or adding "Allegedly" just because we don't like the way it reads. What is needed is an editor(s) who is familiar with his sources, and other similarly reputable ones, who can argue on his level.Timothy Usher 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your points. My general point regarding "Islam" was actually to show that quotes from Imam Muslim, Ibn Kathir, al-Zamakhshari, al-Nawawi, Bernard Lewis, and Hasan al-Kafrawi is not enough to prove that "Islam" says that dhimmis must be humiliated as the first sentence to this section and section title(by your removal of term “alleged”) state. "Islam" IS a set of past/future interpretations of Islam; it is most accurate, as you mentioned, to say in certain/all schools of thought X and Y are so. Unless you can prove that the all major interpretations of Islam say “dhimmis must be humiliated”, the section title will be POV. --Aminz 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The section title doesn't say that Islam requires dhimmis to be humiliated, only that the section is about the humiliation of dhimmis.Timothy Usher 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I was reading the title in other way. But the section title could be read in the way I read it and I am not the first one who read it in this way (e.g. I believe Farhansher read it this way long back). Timothy have a look at the criticism of islam article, there you can see subtitles are "Alleged discrimination", "Alleged .."; by your argument all allegeds need to be removed. --Aminz 05:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Every instance thereof. --tickle me 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So, do you think it is okay to make a section in "Islam" article with the title "Muslims killing themselves" and then write in it about the "Muslims killing themselves"? --Aminz 21:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"Muslims killing themselves" wouldn't be ideal, because it's ambiguous (suicide?). "Muslim-on-Muslim violence" would be fine, were such a section on-topic for the Islam article. (as it's not).
Okay, but what about "Muslims killing one another"? That is a little too headliney; Compare the analogous, "Dhimmis humiliated."Timothy Usher 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"So, do you think it is okay..": No, as neither "Muslims killing themselves" nor "Muslims allegedly killing themselves" would qualify as suitable entry there, notwithstanding eventual factuality. Speaking of which: though I oppose capital punishment, let's kill this thread instead - it ceased to be productive. --tickle me 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Tickle me, Timothy, I just wanted to say that the title of a section at least implicitly talks about the content of the section. It goes further than only representing what the section is about. --Aminz 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it suggests that said humiliation in fact occurred. It doesn't say anything about whether it's mandated by Islamic law. That, to me, is far more problematic than the title.Timothy Usher 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong

Aminz, stop restoring Karen Armstrong's nonsense. Your actions, though, are not surprising given your defense of Ahmad Shafaat as a reliable source. She is not a scholar, just a writer of popular books on Islam. If you believe her books to be scholarly, at least show me the references in them, i.e. demonstrate where she takes her claims from. Pecher Talk 08:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, "Your actions, though..." is somewhat uncalled for. Just state your position. Your request is reasonable. I'd just like to see the rhetoric toned down a bit.Timothy Usher 08:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it that Armstrong's books are not a scholarly source? Why is Lewis considered to be a scholarly source? The Karen Armstrong article itself describes her a " prolific scholar of religions and she has written on a multitude... ". Other sources that call her a "scholar" are: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. In addition to that, Armstrong gets her info from many notable sources, among them bieng,

Esposito, John, Islam the Straight Path.(rev. ed. Oxford 1998)

Hodgson, Marshall G.S, The venture of Islam: Conscience and History in the World Civilization 3 vols (Chicago and London, 1974)

The Oxford History of Islam (Oxford, 1999)

Watt, W. Montgomery, Islam and the Integration of Society (London, 1961)

She's not a scholar at all as she lacks any formal education on the subject of Islamic science. Esposito, Lewis at al don't. Using her disregards fundamental WP policy and any conceivable sensible scientific standards, that's outright apalling, you seem do never have read WP:RS. She's never quoted by scholars, she *quotes* scholars (at the very best) - so *you* are free to quote them. --tickle me 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to cite Karen Armstrong as a source among others. Certainly Lewis is a far more distinguished scholar. If she makes exceptional claims, or contradicts other scholars, that can be noted and her background and training presented. Tom Harrison Talk 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Certainly Lewis is a far more distinguished scholar": this infers she is a scholar, please provide proof. "It's perfectly reasonable to cite Karen Armstrong as a source among others". So, as long as referred to as "a source among others" just anybody can be cited? No limits, no holds? Just find somebody who happens to support your stance and feel free to quote? Don't beware false authority anymore, cite the popular press at will? Just give a caveat lector and shoot?
Regarding the contended edits: in the first instance, Armstrong is quoted selectively insinuating ("Karen Armstrong, however, writes...") that her point is fit to refute Lewis. In the second instance, a sentence referring to Lewis is cut in half, replacing the first half with an Armstrong quote - as Lewis position didn't match Bless sins' POV. Thx for encouraging Bless sins to revert.
"If she makes exceptional claims, or contradicts other scholars, that can be noted and her background and training presented": So, as long as we say that somebody is a writer of popular books without any formal and recognized knowledge of the subject, we may cite him every which way we please? Wouldn't it be a, ...ugh, good idea to cite the notable scholars of the field instead, who, incidentally, happen to be abundant? If Esposito, Said, Quaradawi, Ramadan, Faruqi or any other of their side did happen to disagree with Lewis, ok, no objections. But if they didn't, or else, if one right honourable co wikipedian did fail to find instances thereof or just didn't bother to search in the first place as this may not be his preferred reading - wouldn't it be a good idea to *not* wedge in popular writers to fill a perceived void and make a point? I fail to understand the rationale. I won't talk about quality here, that point is obviously lost. --tickle me 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Tickle me, unless you are prepared to adopt a more civil tone, I really do not care to talk with you further. Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I never expected to hear an argument, like "any source is OK, as long as we acknowledge it" from such an experienced admin as you, Tom. Tom, will you object to citing Robert Spencer? Why not, he is much more qualified to speak about Islam than Armstrong is? He has formal education in religious studies, and he specializes in Islam and happens to have written numerous books on Islam only over the last two decades. This is in stark contrast to Armstrong who writes about everything: Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, history of the myth, anything goes. If she could produce first-class research on this enormous range of topics, she would be one of the greatest scholars ever, but she isn't. The point about Karen Armstrong is similar to that on all unreliable sources: if she says something right, this can be sourced to reliable sources, if she says something wrong, than it's just wrong. Pecher Talk 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Karen Armstrong has an area of expertise. Dhimmitude as a historical institution is not that area. I don't say that she should be cited in preference to Lewis, but she may be cited in addition to Lewis, or in relation to points he doesn't address. I like Bernard Lewis as well as anyone, but this page is not Bernard Lewis' understanding of Dhimmitude. My point was that it is inaccurate, as well as unreasonably hyperbolic and uncivil, to say the "Using her disregards fundamental WP policy and any conceivable sensible scientific standards, that's outright apalling." Language like that, and the approach to editing that for some goes with it, serves only to antagonize people who would otherwise continue to watch the page and support the work here. Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur. On the merits of the case, Lewis is an expert and Armstrong is not. And regardless of her scholarly standing, several of the Armstrong quotes I've seen deployed thusfar obscure more than they inform. That said, there is no reason to speak to Aminz, Bless sins (who added the quotes), or Tom this way. I could understand it were it flying in both directions, but its not. By doing so, we only make it a point of honor for the other editor not to concede, even though your point may be correct.Timothy Usher 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, we shouldn't use popular books per WP:RS; that's the major issue here. Why not quote Ali Sina's recent book in addition to Karen Armstrong, just for balance? On this article, a certain standard for sourcing has already been set, and we will not improve the article by reducing this standard. Pecher Talk 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
On your first point, I don't think Amrstrong has any area of experise, considering the range of the topics that she covers, as I have already pointed out above. That's not the way scholars work. Pecher Talk 21:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


There are three references at issue.

1) "Karen Armstrong, however, writes:

Dhimmis were allowed full religious liberty and were able to organize their community according to thier own customal law, but were required to recognize Islamic sovereignty.[1]

"

This is simply careless writing on Armstrong's part. Even under the most benign interpretations of Dhimmitude, it can't be characterized as "full religious liberty."

2) "[the pact] was based on the rationale that the dhimmis were Ahl al Kitab and had received authentic scriptures from God.[2]"

Although vaguely written, and I'm not sure why it was placed where it was, this is based on truth. We can find better sources for it.

3) "Karen Armstrong defines a dhimmi as "a 'protected subject' in the Islamic Empire, who belonged to the religions tolerated by the Quran, the ahl al-Kitab. They inculded Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs." [3]"

Protected from whom, one wonders? To this degree, it's distortive. It's more accurate to say, they are spared.

It's also inaccurate - Hindus are emphatically not ahl al-Kitab - if that's indeed what Armstrong says (as it's not a quote), it shows her to be critically unreliable.Timothy Usher 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All of the above are actually very powerful arguments against the use of karen Armstrong as a source. Pecher Talk 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Tom, there are many Islamic scholars who extend the "Ahl al-Kitab" status to all non-Muslims. One example is Maududi. Over time Muslim empires in India extended this to Hindus. The Prophet Muhammad himself extended that status (of Ahl al-Kitab) to Zorastrians. ALso, you will find Muslim who place Hindus (allegedly "polytheists") in the same category with Christians (allegedly "Ahl al Kitab"). An example is Saudi Arabia, which puts the same restricitions on Hindus and Christians alike.142.240.200.10 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

@Tom harrison: If my language antagonizes you, may I ask to address that right away, separating editor from issue, and not to encourage wikipedians in the ongoing edit war to use Armstrong where it's not proper - instead? A factual issue: what is her area of Islam related expertise? I checked her article and Bless sins' links and couldn't find an indication. --tickle me 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong's work is not Original Research. She infact gives an extensive bibliography at the back of her book, some of which I've posted. Basically she puts togethor centuries of research done by experts.

Other sources

It's interesting that this article extensively uses controversial authors like Bernard Lewis and Bat Yeor (who themselves are consciously transparent in their anti-Muslim bigotry), while avoiding legitimate historians of Islamic civilization who present a critical, yet unbiased perspectives using both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. If a single author such as Lewis or Yeor makes a controversial claim not supported or even mentioned by the vast majority of established scholars, then such claims cannot be stated as fact. As such, this article (as with a number of others) is nothing but a POV anti-Muslim essay without even the slightest bit of balance. Considering that this is the 21st century, those who fuel this sort of hatred should be ashamed of themselves. SouthernComfort 10:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lewis may be controversial, but only because some people do not like his opinions. He is a serious scholar of Islam and calling him an anti-Muslim bigot is simply nasty bigotry in and of itself. You have a problem with his degrees take it up with SOAS et al. What is controversial about Lewis' claims here? The fact you can contrast Lewis with "the vast majority of established scholars" is odd considering who Lewis is. What balance is needed here? Muslims have always said that the dhimmi must be humiliated. It is only in the modern period they have changed their tune. You should be pointing that finger at people seeking to rewrite history for PC reasons. Not at real scholars who simply report the truth. Now if you want to go on discussing this I suggest a more reasoned, balanced and informed approach which does not rely on insults so much. Lao Wai 10:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Much of Lewis' writings do not provide context. He makes broad generalizations about the Islamic world despite the fact that each Islamic society was different from the other. This isn't about political correctness - it's about historical context and unbiased perspectives. You cannot tell me in good faith that you honestly believe that Lewis is truly objective. His writings prove otherwise. SouthernComfort 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What writings do you have in mind? He rarely writes on the entire Islamic word so, again, what do you have in mind? It is about political correctness given Lewis' position as a very serious scholar of Islam indeed. I do not have a good faith belief that Lewis is objective, but he is more so than most in Islamic studies. But again what do you have in mind? Lao Wai 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
SouthernComfort this is an anti-islamic article. Hence I do not get that why you are against use of some specific authors Bernard Lewis and Bat Yeor. --- Faisal 11:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's only anti-Islamic if the history is not placed into context - as it stands, this article, as well as others such as Islam and anti-Semitism, provide no such context and make vast generalizations about the Islamic world, lumping every society into one boat, as if Islam is a vaccuum where every single Muslim society operates exactly the same, according to the same rules and practices. A critical view of religious history is not problematic - it's only when that history is used and abused to further a bigoted agenda, which in the case of Lewis and Yeor (Eurabia, for example, which is simply appalling), is an anti-Islamic one. SouthernComfort 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What context did you have in mind? The fact is that Dhimmi status is only relevant to a small number of Muslim societies - essentially the Arab-Turkish-Persian core (plus its extension India). And of course Muslim societies do operate according to the same law - Sharia is not culturally specific (although in reality it is interpreted in various ways). What bigoted agenda do you think Lewis has? And while Bat Yeor is awful, she is not wrong either. Lao Wai 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already explained how to provide proper context. Muslim societies do not operate according to the same law. Anyone who has ever all the countless hadith out there can attest that for most issues, there is no global consensus and each culture has it's own specific mores and laws unique to that society. SouthernComfort 14:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously Muslim societies do not operate the same law which is why the issue of Dhimmis is really only relevant to the central Muslim core. But that does not mean that Islamic law is not the same or at least similar however it is interpreted. Which is of course a central claim of most Muslims. I do not see how you have suggested wee provide context. After all this article cannot even decide if it is about Islamic law or Muslim behaviour. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is the fundamental problem with the article. It ignores the multiple interpretations, the divergences, and the conflicts between Muslims on sharia law. This article attempts to ascribe the views of specific Muslims at specific times to all Muslims at all times.
I think the only way to get around this would be to gradually reorganize this article as a history of Dhimmi. All information would remain in tact, but statements would be given appropriate context. "This is how it was at a specific place and time." "This is a set of norms advocated by a few people." "This is set of norms advocated by another set of people."
Or alternatively it can stick to what Islamic law says on the subject and ignore what Muslims do. After all even a claim that the concept evolves is POV and some Muslims would object. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's impossible to state universals for Islam with the possible exception of what existed during Mohammed's life. Hence, each example should be given context, rather than trying to overascribe them as universals. danthrax 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More on humiliation

You were right, SouthernComfort, the frst sentence in the "Humiliation" section was unsourced. Therefore, I have rewritten it, expanded it to include the direct speach of a Muslim scholar, and referenced it. Sounds better now? Pecher Talk 13:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're using such information to make vast generalizations. I don't understand why you and others critical of Islam are unable to at least make an attempt to provide context and avoid generalizing an entire religion. Just because a cleric somewhere issues a fatwa does not make it true for all Muslims everywhere. Muslims are free to accept that fatwa or reject it. There are many different schools of thought and countless fatwas from countless different clerics throughout history. Examining the history you have to place such a proclamation into context - who issued it, where was it issued, how widely was it accepted, etc. So far you have not even attempted to do this. SouthernComfort 14:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Find a few pre-modern dissenting scholars then. Ones who thought Dhimmis shouldn't be humiliated or that the jizyah was wrong. Lao Wai 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You're ignoring the gist of my argument. That was then, this is now. You're using selective history to make vast generalizations. That is a million miles away from being NPOV. SouthernComfort 14:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not think I am. This is not an article on modern Muslim societies, it is an article on a concept in Islamic law. Which does not, according to Muslims, change by the way. I am doing nothing except objecting to your editing. If you think this represents a fringe of the Muslim world, provide some evidence. I think it is pretty NPOV - where's the bias? Lao Wai 14:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it DOES change. That's the problem with this entire article. Religions change. This is a plain truth. Does anyone even contest that religions evolve -- other than fundamentalists? danthrax 19:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I said Muslims tend to say it did not change. If this article is about what Muslims did it will end up as a mess. It ought to stick to what Islamic law is or should be. And as far as I can see that is what it does. What is the problem with that? Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with Lao Wai that Islam basics does not change with time. We all Muslims agreed that Quran is preserved as in its original form and never changed. Hence, I will love to see that article rewritten with exactly what Quran and Sunnah say and including history of as long as 4 Caliphs. However, sadly The article say things like ... In the beginning there were no force conversions and then after 100s of years there were force convertions .... Mr. Lao, I hope you will help me to delete all such things which were not right according to Islam and not allowed according to any school of thought in Islam. Will you? (I hope you will not turn you back on what you have said above). Secondly, when one mention any verse from Quran then wording of that verse is not always give its full meaning/understanding (it is true for any book). You have to see on what context and event that verse referring too. For example, a verse could say kill non-Muslims but when someone will read verses before it then he will know that it refering to the event of war and when you are under attack...
Mr Lao, I hope that you will agree to help me in following Two important things
  • (1) Removing all points in the article about histry which had nothing to do with Qurans/Muhammad (PBUH) teaching.
  • (2) We will quote all verses related to Dhimmi from Quran (instead of selected one) so that we can present a full view. While doing so we will present the context and event (according to different/many-many scholars, not according to some single contraversial Jew writer who hate Islam) so that one can undertand the true meaning of that verse.
I know my religion is a beautiful religion but these people in wikipedia are getting their information from websites like jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch. These website are there by the people who are biased towards Islam and hate Islam. One not always get unbaised information from such websites. If you all help me doing above mentioned two things then this article will become a great article. --- Faisal 19:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

@Lao Wai. "If this article is about what Muslims did it will end up as a mess": I disagree. Giving a definition based exclusively on Islamic Law would make it a dictionary entry. Restricting the definition to Qu'ran solely, would qualify as WP:OR. Even if acceptable, it'd be fit for inclusion, say in a dictionary for Qur'an alone or, arguably, Salafi Muslims. However, this is an encyclopedia, which by definition deals with all relevant aspects of a given issue. Thus, the various definitions (minding due weight principle), and its impact on society and history are to be mentioned. Would we write on the crusades, giving medieval christendom's definition, without mentioning the impact on Europe's and Middle East societies? That would be hardly encyclopedic. --tickle me 23:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said Only Quran. I said we will quote each relavent verse of Quran. Obviously, the teaching of Muhammd (PBUH) sould be included that is Sunnah and Hadith. We can include history as long as it is relevant to teaching of Muhammd (PBUH) and Quran. If you want to include things that were AGAINST Islam then you need to mention this fact explicitly and clearly that following things were done by muslims but were against Islam. (or create a new separate article for those things). --- Faisal 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, your comment about "some ... Jew writer who hate Islam" may be construed as an ethnic attack, which is entirely unacceptable on Wikipedia. You may see an action taken against you if you continue making comments like this one. Pecher Talk 08:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher I have not made a general statement about ALL the Jews. However, I feel Barnad Lewis is biased against Islam and hence I refer to him as single ... Jew writer which is not ethnic. --- Faisal 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of dhimmi

The previous definition is obsolete as it is an archaic usage for a time when slavery was practiced. Dhimmitude in modern Islamic countries has nothing to do with issues of slavery or who is "free" and "not free" (i.e. slaves.) SouthernComfort 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is about historical circumstances, rather than about dhimmitude in its present-day expressions, although dhimmitude is an important subject in its own right. The term 'free' is essential to include, for not all non-Muslims in an Islamic society were dhimmis. Very many were slaves, and these were not dhimmis! In any case, slavery is not yet obsolete! Eagleswings 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Bernard Lewis is not widely accepted as an unbiased source on Middle Eastern studies. Numerous scholars of equal qualifications have come out in criticism of Lewis, including Edward Said and Richard Bulliet. Other pristegious scholars have asserted claims that invalidate claims made by Lewis, including Marshall Hodgson, M. Shahid Alam, and John Woods at the University of Chicago. There are countless others, certainly.

Exactly how does anything the late Marshall Hodgson say "invalidate" what Lewis says? Do you know how historians work? Lewis is more widely accepted as an unbiased source than, say, Juan Cole. He is such a figure in the field Said wrote Orientalism aimed mainly at him. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The systematic biases lodged against Bernard Lewis are as follows:

Which has simply become a weasel word for people who do not want to deal with him or his ideas and prefer to throw insults. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignores that there was never actually a Muslim ummah, aside from 23 years during Mohammed's life. Jihadists, of course, dispute this. To give credence to the jihadists is to ignore the diverse set of opinions between Muslims even 1000 years ago.
Where does he do this and you're wrong - the Ummah exists as a concept in Muslim societies and of course the Rashidun and Ummayads held it together. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes the case that Islam is intrinstically anti-modern, moreso than other religions. As such, he often mistakeningly ascribes the views on the extremes of Muslim society to be true of all Muslims. He understates the capacity for religions to evolve, change, and diverge -- which should be patently obvious.
That seems more or less obvious to me and I don't see what the problem is. Which views of the extremes? Where does he underestimate this? Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Critics suggest that many of Lewis's biases come from his brief experience living in Turkey. They believe his experience with turkish history has been overextended to the Arab history, when there was a significant divergence in the experiences of Turks and Arabs. Colonialism is key. In ignoring this key difference between the Turks and Arabs, he often attributes the outcome of each society to a question of secularism. The degree of colonialism experienced (among other factors) plays a large role in determining the current views of Muslims, not just experienced secularism.
Which is precisely his point - his Turkish experience shows the path he thinks the Arabs should have taken but did not. He is all too aware that Arabs are not Turks. The rest seems a trivial complaint. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

His reputatation has remained in tact largely because of the prominance of neoconservatives citing his research to support their policies in Iraq. Not to say that Bernard Lewis's motivations are to support neoconservative policy. But it explains why he may receive a disproportionate amount of credibility in powerful circles, and opposing scholarship receives relatively little citation.

Rubbish. His reputation remains intact because he is a serious scholar who produces serious work. The fact that the neo-Cons took him up has probably dented his reputation. I think that opposing scholarship gets plenty of attention. Too much some times. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem once we examine the references. There is a serious lack of parity in this article because of it.

  • 22 of the 63 cited statements are linked to Lewis.
Bring on some other authors then. Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Another 18 statements have been linked to Bat Ye'or, a proponent of Lewis's views.
In what sense does BY propose Lewis' views? Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • More than half (perhaps two thirds) of the article can be attributed to the scholarship of these two alone, to say nothing of the other references.
Then bring on some other authors Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What we have right now is much more "Bernard Lewis on Dhimmi" rather than "Dhimmi". That is simply unacceptable even if Bernard Lewis was NOT under serious criticism. Again, this is not an ad hominem attack rather than to show that there's a significant point-of-view problem here. It's tough to say we have an unbiased article when 2/3 of it comes from two scholars in the same ideological circle, let alone that this circle is itself accused of serious problems of bias.

danthrax 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it is an ad hominem attack and it is not a POV problem. Lewis remains a serious scholar in the field. Nothing has been shown to be wrong. It is not outr POV at any rate. What ideological circle would this be? Nothing to do with, let me guess, the fact they are both Jewish would it? Who accuses this veritable conspiracy with bias? Lao Wai 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you reacted like I personally took a dump all over your Barbie collection. I haven't seen such a defensively toxic response to a very dispassionate criticism.
It is amusing that you think my response was toxic and yours dispassionate. Well amusing is not the right word. I don't think I have contributed a single sentence to the article so it is hardly my Barbie collection. I suggest if you're going to continue you learn to behave a little better. Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to draw brief attention to a few statements you made:
  • You took the Orientalist comment as an insult, rather than a descriptor of a specific ideological viewpoint that -- hate it or love it -- is under dispute in nearly every university in the world.
You certainly used it as an insult - a simple ad hominem. You did not point out what was POV about his work, you simply threw an insult. I agree it is disputed in nearly every University in the world, and Universities are not, in general, better for it. But at least Said had an argument and part of a case. What have you got? Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You acknowledge that Lewis has a POV: "his Turkish experience shows the path he thinks the Arabs should have taken but did not."
It is absurd to think that writers do not have opinions. Doesn't mean his work is POV or we would not be able to cite anyone. Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You brought up the "Jewish" thing out of nowhere, not me.
Well tell me what Lewis and Bat Yeor have in common? You insist on lumping them together. Why? You accuse them of belonging to a group. Why? What defines this group of people? Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
We ought to be constructive, here. Bernard Lewis has a distinct POV, some of his statements are disputed as mere speculation or even outright revisionism. As we draw on other sources to bring parity to this article, we need to have a plan in place for when these conflicts arise.
I have no problems with real research, although of course it is not allowed, or sensible criticism. But your ad hominem approach is absurd. I notice you have still failed to point out exactly what is wrong with Lewis' or Yeor's work. Apart from them being part of some vast Anti-Muslim conspiracy. Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Getting rid of "all POV" is tricky business. Even a lot of work by Bernard Lewis would be vulnerable to this criticism. Again, whether you agree with him or not, there are highly respected and prestigious historians who quesiton the authenticity of some of his 'factual' statements. Reducing this article to absolute Sharia law would probably disappoint a lot of researchers -- especially those who dispute whether there is, in fact, universal unchanging Sharia law. (See the Sharia article -- which pretty much acknowledges that there are divergences and developments -- even if some Muslims reject those divergences.)
If a single example of that exists on this page cite a revelant author. I agree that some wicked Orientalists insist that Sharia changes, but of course that demeans the indigenous POV that it does not. Which are you going to do? Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There's only one other alternative, as far as I can see it. Bernard Lewis stays, but we agree that we need more authors. We acknowledge that Lewis's work has legitimate academic detractors (not just Islamic fundamentalists and 'jihadists'). Rather than pushing out any fact that is in dispute (which would make for a very short article), we represent these factual disputes so long as they have an intellectual basis.
My point all along. This is not the page to acknowledge anything about Lewis. That belongs on the Lewis page. But it is worthwhile finding other opininos on Dhimmis. Not that there are any. Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There are actually several parts of this article that already take this approach, and I think it's intelligent to do so. The problem is that there are other portions of the article that make much more sweeping generalizations that are not made with appropriate qualifications (e.g.: "Some historians assert that...", or "other historians dispute that..." or "some Muslims pushed for..."). To simply cite a statement made by a respected person is not to cite a fact about all Muslim societies.
Speaking of societies...
You said "the Ummah exists as a concept in Muslim societies". That is, there are multiple Muslim societies who have conceived of the Ummah. Multiple societies are not a unified Islamic nation. A unified Islamic nation does not exist nor has it existed since the early years of Islam. I think most people would respect the fact that no religion is a monolith. As such, we must do a better job providing context on various interpretations and implementations of Dhimmi. (Unless we want the Dhimmitude article to be defined by Islamic fundamentalists, and those who believe Islam is a religion of fundamentalists.)

Well it existed for a large part of the Umayyad and some of the Abbasid period. But then moved definition. Muslims may live in different countries but still tend to talk of the united Ummah. Again the actual usage of Dhimmi remains restricted to the West Asian core so it is not that much to discuss about other societies. Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

With conflicts between our source materials, we need to figure out how such conflicts will be addressed. We cannot simply say "Mr. Lewis is smarter than Mr. Said" or vice versa. We ought to have a system or a plan in place for how contradictions will impact the writing of this article. I'm hoping that in the coming weeks, we can build towards that. danthrax 00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that Lewis is smarter than Said, although Lewis is a better scholar of the Middle East. I think you need to come up with some examples of what you think is wrong and what needs to be done rather than simply throw insults at Lewis, Yeor and people like me who simply do not agree with you. Do something productive. Lao Wai 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lao Wai, my criticism is much more general, and something you ought to agree with. Bernard Lewis has a distinct point of view, which you admit. Many of his 'facts' (I use that word extremely loosely) are disputed by many equally or better qualified scholars.
My goal is not to remove all POV, but to bring parity to it. And I'm pointing out that eventually sources are going to be brought in to contradict the "Bernard Lewis on Dhimmi" article we have now. What will we do when they come in? I hope to all rationality that the keepers of this personal 'barbie collection' don't insist in a monolithic interpretation of Dhimmi.
The "orientalist" interpretation (which I use only a description of that Point of View) cannot be considered the one true path. Not only are there other valid interpretations, but you fully admit there's a POV to Lewis's work.
The point is simple. Either you're open to contradictions in the article, resolved by "some believe X, but some believe Y"... or you're going to insist "X and only X". What's it going to be? danthrax 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt there are any better qualified scholars. He has a BA and a PhD from SOAS and also studied at the University of Paris. But, still, if you know of a fact, or even a "fact", that is disputed bring it forward, let's see it. He has an opinion or two which gets up the noses of some of his lesser colleagues (in a general sense) but that is different. I do not claim that the "Orientalist" interpretation (assuming I admitted any such thing existed) is the only one, just that it cannot be written off by name-calling which is all your use of Orientalist amounts to. If he is wrong, he is wrong whether he is an "Orientalist" or not. And if he is right, likewise. I am all in favor of people saying "X says..., but Y says..." but that has not been your approach. Rather you have claimed a superior form of knowledge based on your sensitivity to Arab and Muslim cultures. So if you have some evidence, let's see it. But don't simply write people off just because you do not like what you perceive as their politics. Lao Wai 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I disagree with Lao Wai many time but yes the concept of Ummah still exist. At least it exists for many Muslims (including me). However, it does not mean that all Muslims agreed with action of Sadaam Hussain or any evil person/leader. That is the reason that generalization should not be made, when one Muslim do something wrong. For example: let say that there were force conversions. What I feel about that (1) I find Quran/Muhammad (PBUH) teaching against it. (2) I really feel ashamed about that if it really happen and condemn it from my heart. So although the concept of Ummah very much exist but action of some evil leader should not be associated with All Muslim or Islam and generalization should be made only if such actions are true according the basics of Islam (Quran/Sunnah). --- Faisal 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A Nice article

Just want to share this article. --- Faisal 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Non-Muslim saying about Dhimmi

What Many non-Muslim authors says about Dhimmi (I will update the article tomorrow with these). Testimony of Western Historians

Welldiorant says:

"The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays. They were free to practice their rituals. They maintained their churches and synagogues and the only obligation was that they should wear a special color and pay tax for every person pro rata his income. This sum ranged between two and four dinars. This tax was exclusively levied on non-Muslims who can go to war. However priests, women, children, slaves, elderly men, the disabled, the blind and the destitute were exempted from the tax. Dhimmis were exempted from military service in return. They were also exempted from zakat which is 2.5% of the annual income and the government was bound to protect them."[The History of Civilization (131/12)]

Adam Mitz in his book The Islamic Civilization says:

"Dhimmis used to pay jizya each pro rata his income. Jizya was similar to national defense tax as it was only paid by men who can go to war while the disabled, priests, clergy were exempted unless they have wealth." [The Islamic Civilization (96/1)]

Thomas Arnold in his The Preaching of Islam says:

"The purpose of levying this tax on Christians as reiterated by some researchers was not a form of punishment for not accepting Islam. They rather used to pay it with the remaining dhimmis namely non-Muslims subjects of the Islamic state whose beliefs prevent them from joining the military service in return for the protection secured to them by Muslims' swords." [The Preaching of Islam]

--- Faisal 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another citation needed

re sentence: "The medieval Quranic commentator Ibn Kathir, describing the consensus opinion of Muslim scholars, justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an.";

re :"describing the consensus opinion of Muslim scholars" either please clarify how current reference says this or find new references. (though this is possibly true).

re: "justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an"; seems that the current reference justifies jizya rather than dhimmitude + please clarify how this source says that "justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an" (exclusively). Thanks. Aminz

Tafseer of two different person could be different. I do not get that when I cannot use any reference of any islamic website in favor of jizya then why they can use islamic website references against jizya. --- Faisal 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, of course you can quote from Tafsir of famous scholars. Please when you want to cite it, don't give reference to an internet website (please give the reference to the original tafsir unless that website is the official website of the scholar). I only have access to tafsirs written by shia scholars (I added two cites, which I think were good). You can always find tafsirs of "famous" sunni scholars and quote from there in wikipedia. Aminz

Commenting out

Aminz, I think what Karl Meier was trying to say is, much of the material you've added is worthy, but he thinks it doesn't belong where you put it. So, he was giving it a place to live while we figure out where to put it. I'm just guessing though.Timothy Usher 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I didn't notice the intro was becoming long. True. So, I'll copy paste the material here till we figure out where to put them.

"The Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi comments that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and Dhimmi's lives and properties on their behalf [4]. Many Muslim scholars, but not all, have recommended jizya to be collected in a humiliating procedure based on the Qur'ans usage of the word sa:ghiru:na in Qur'an [Quran 9:29]."

"Dhimmis were little disturbed during the rule of Ommiads (with the exception of Omar II) since "it was not in keeping with the worldly policy of those rulers to favor the tendencies of fanatical zealots."[5] Jewish encyclopedia states that "Intolerance of infidels and a limitation of their freedom were first made a part of the law during the rule of the Abbassids, who, to bring about the ruin of their predecessors, had supported theocratic views and granted great influence to the representatives of intolerant creeds. Under them also the law was introduced compelling Jews to be distinguished by their clothing. At a later period such distinguishing marks became frequent in the Mohammedan kingdoms." [6] Some restrictions imposed on dhimmis from time to time, such as the use of neck seals in the administration of the poll tax in seventh- and eighth-century in Syria and Iraq [7], and requirements to wear distinctive clothing, were symbolic in nature and were designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims."

"The conditions of the dhimma was a factor in acceptance of Islam by many non-Muslims in conquered lands. There were also many enlightened conversions to Islam among the Jews in the twelfth century. Grätz considers it as “partly owing as to the degeneracy that had taken hold of Eastern Judaism, manifesting itself in the most superstitious practices, and partly moved by the wonderful success of the Arabs in becoming a world-power”. There were also many forced conversion to Islam due to “the rise of the Almohades (Unitarians), in 1142, and the great wave of religious reform, mixed with religious fanaticism”. [8]"

Thanks --Aminz 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

An addition: A section/paragraph for quotes forged and attributed to Muhammad regarding Dhimmi's

Based on the following from Jewish Encyclopedia + from other possible sources:

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

Any feedback? --Aminz 07:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

Explanation for removal of Tabatabai quote + all my other edits is required. --Aminz 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, please give some explanation here. If you know something about those passages that I don't know, please let me know. I have provided references for all my sentences. --Aminz 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, why not just re-add your material where you think it belongs? You're right that you deserve an explanation and a discussion.
I'll also say that I'm extremely impressed by what Pecher has added to the article today. But I don't see why your data can't also be included. The material from the Jewish Encyclopedia is historical and interesting. I may add it myself later on tonight.Timothy Usher 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Encyclopedia was a great source in 1906, when its publication was completed. But now it's 2006 and the encyclopedia is a little bit dated. In some cases it is just wrong. For example: "Intolerance of infidels and a limitation of their freedom were first made a part of the law during the rule of the Abbassids, who, to bring about the ruin of their predecessors, had supported theocratic views and granted great influence to the representatives of intolerant creeds. Under them also the law was introduced compelling Jews to be distinguished by their clothing." This statement contradicts the prior quote from the same source, which correctly says that the treatment of dhimmis first underwent a sharp turn for the worse under the Umayyad caliph Umar II. Also, the requirement to wear distinctive clothing was first introduced in the surrender treaty of the city of Hira as early as 633 (Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi, p. 47). This also underscores the importance of using contemporary research. Pecher Talk 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I will wait one more day. The article is cleared up of all my edits. There should be some reason for that and I am willing to hear to them. Especially I am willing to hear about the reason behind removal of Tabatabai quote. The edit summary does not give a clear answer. I would like to hear more on it. --Aminz 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I appreciate your not re-inserting the material back into the article and using the talk page instead. Now I want to understand your reasoning as to how the Tabatabai quote illuminates the "Sources of dhimma" issue and why it merits inclusion into the article. Pecher Talk 17:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Tabatabai quote illuminates the "Sources of dhimma" issue since it is about "abrogation" of other relevant verses by the quoted verse. Here is the exact quote from Tabatabi (I am copy/pasting the whole section but am converting the relevant part to "Italic")

TRADITIONS

Abu Ja'far (a.s.) said about the words of Allāh, and speak to men good (words): "Speak to men the best of that which you would like to be said about yourself." (al-Kāfi)

as-Sadiq (a.s.) said about this verse: "Speak to men, and do not speak but good until you know what it is.

"al-Bāqir (a.s.) said: "Speak to men the best, of that which you would like to be said about yourself; for certainly Allāh, Mighty and Great is He, dislikes an abuser, curler, speaker of evil against the believers, indecent, shameless (and) begger, and He loves the modest, mild-tempered, chaste (and) moderate." (Ma`āni 'l-akhbār)

The author says: A tradition, similar to the first one, has been narrated in al-Kāfī from as-Sādiq (a.s.) with another chain of narrators; and similarly in al-`Ayyāshī.

Another tradition, like the second one has been written from the same Imam in al-Kāfī; and one like the third is narrated from al-Bāqir (a.s.) in al -`Ayyāshī. Apparently these meanings of the "good word" have been inferred from general usage.

as-Sādiq (a.s) said: "Verily Allāh sent Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) with five swords: So (there is) a sword against a dhimmī ( = free non-Muslim subject of an Islamic country). Allāh said: and speak to men good (words); it was revealed about the dhimmīs, then it was abrogated by another verse, Fight those who do not believe in Allāh. . . (9:29) (al-`Ayyāshī)

The author says: In this tradition the Imam has taken the "speech" to mean behavior. We say: Do not speak to him but good; what we mean is: Do not deal with him but in a good and decent manner. This meaning will apply only if we take the word, "abrogated" in its terminological sense. But it may also be taken in its literal sense (as we shall explain under the verse: Whatever signs We abrogate or cause to be forgotten . . .2:106); and in that case this verse will not be in conflict with that of the fighting. It should be pointed out that such uses of words in their literal meanings (as against their terminological ones) are not infrequent in the traditions of the Imams.

I cannot see above any argument supporting the inclusion of Tabatabaei quote into the sources section. The section is about the sources of dhimmi laws, while the quote deals with the exegesis of several Quranic suras. You cannot include the quote in the section unless you can show how Tabatabaei opinion influenced dhimmi laws. Pecher Talk 08:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote indicates that there is not a unique verse about dhimmi's in the Qur'an. There is a Hadith that states that the mentioned verse has "abrogated" other verses and that quote explains the meaning of "abrogation". So, it is quite relevant to both that verse and the sources of dhimmi (i.e. are other verses relevant or not). Allameh Tabatabaei is a significant (contemporary) religious authority in Shia Islam. His opinions should have influenced the dhimmi laws but in any case, that quote by itself at least shows different possible theoretic interpretations of the issue. I think the article on dhimmi should both explain different religious understandings of the matter together with its history and not the history alone. --Aminz 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You did not address my question: how this comment or the verse(s) in question were used in setting Islamic law regarding dhimmis? Pecher Talk 16:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is about how Dhimmi's should be treated in general. Morality related commandments are part of Islam. It is very much related to the verse 9:29. It is quoted by a significant scholar. I don't know if it has been used "in setting Islamic law regarding dhimmis" or not. I am not Tabatabai. But that's his view on Tabatabai. That may have been influential in some case. We can't prove it hasn't been influential in any law at any time. Even if it has not been, which I don't think, it can be potentially influential. That part of the section, as it stood, look as there is only one Qur'anic verse on Dhimmi's. --Aminz 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you admit that you don't know know if it was used then the you should not try to insert the quote into the sources section. It is not sufficient for you to think that it "may have been influential in some case"; you should quote reliable sources to prove that it was influential. Here we're talking about a Shi'a scholar: Shi'as account for about 10% of all Muslims and we don't even know how influential this opinion of Tabatabaei was among Shi'a Muslims. I undestand that you may like him, but you're blowing the significance of his opinion out of proportion as far as this article is concerned. Pecher Talk 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think dhimmitude were abolished by Tabatabai's time. Tabatabai's quote is therefore theoretical and shows a possible interpretation to which he seems to subscribe. It is quite related to 9:29 and other relevant verses and is in the context. If 10% of Muslims are shia, we can add that he is a shia scholar. I will modify this. It is also very unlikely that Tabatabai is the first one who has realized that "abrogation" could be understood in two senses. --Aminz 22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about an exegesis of verse 9:29 or other verses that it abrogated. If you cannot justify how this comment was used in setting dhimmi laws, please remove it from the sources section. Tabatabai's is probably relevant for the article on Sura 9:29, but it does not belong here. Pecher Talk 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we put this in a new section about modern Islamic law and practice as relates to dhimma? I created a new talk section to discuss this - see Tabatabai and modern Islamic law. - Merzbow 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, most of the discussion is here. Can we please keep it here. --Aminz 22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. My proposal stands, this quote would properly fit in a new section specifically about dhimma in modern Islam (theory and practice). And obviously such a section would be relevant to the article. - Merzbow 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, something new to think about is if it's actually true that the practice of dhimma as historically understood has now been abolished in modern times. The article says so, referencing a book. Assuming this is true, then there is no modern Islamic 'practice' of dhimma, and so the section I proposed is probably irrelevant. Therefore the Tabatabai quote probably isn't relevant either. But I think similar quotes from Islamic authority figures in the past, when dhimma was still being practiced, would be relevant in the 'Sources of dhimma' section (and I think Pecher is implying as such above). - Merzbow 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, just a quick question, what about people of the book living in Muslim countries today? Are they considered to be "dhimmi"? --Aminz 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the main article on Islam, it appears that the consensus is that dhimma is a phenomenon of the past - "The classical Islamic solution was a limited tolerance — Jews and Christians were to be allowed to privately practice their faith and follow their own family law. They were called dhimmis and paid a special tax called the jizya."
That being said, it is clear that certain modern-day Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia do place special restrictions on religious minorites (i.e. you can't build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia, and so on). But I suppose that this isn't considered dhimma - perhaps because no modern Islamic country has actually come out and said that its minorities are dhimmis and would be treated as such according to Islamic law? - Merzbow 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have followed Pecher's suggestion in making a new article on this Qur'anic verse and adding my quote there. --Aminz 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Is it recommended to have entire articles on single verses? I can find examples for the Bible (see John_3:16). Whether or not this verse is well-known or important enough to deserve the same treatment I'm not qualified to answer. You should comment in the new article about why that verse is important, otherwise I suspect the article will be nominated for deletion soon. As long as the article exists, I suppose you should link the other references to 9:29 in the Dhimmi article to the new article for consistency's sake. - Merzbow 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

STOP QUOTING QURAN without knowing the right contaxt of a verse

I said previously that when you quote a verse from Quran then you should know its true contaxt. However, few people here continue their propoganda. The article now says

"Dhimmis were frequently referred to by derogatory names, both in the official and in the everyday speech. In the Ottoman Empire, the official appellation for dhimmis was "raya", meaning "a herd of cattle". In the Muslim parlance, "apes" was the standard epithet for the Jews, while Christians were frequently denoted as "pigs". These animalistic parallels were rooted in the Qur'anic verses describing People of the Book being transformed into apes and pigs (Qur'an [Quran 5:60]).[9]"

Which is extremely wrong and it is so bad that these people are using wikipedia for their propaganda using Quran. The verse refer to some a particular/specific group of Jews. It has nothing to do with Dhimmi or Christian or even with ALL the Jews.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/3_misinterpreted_ayat.htm

I am going to delete this new propoganda and will use my 3 edits to continue deleting it again and again. I know that I will not be sucessful in deleting it as right now I have less support but still I will do whatever I could do. --- Faisal 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what context is there here? The Quran clearly refers to people of the Book as apes and swine. Where does it single out particular Jews? The answering-christinaity site is a farrago of lies and distortions. Little it says is of any value at all. Lao Wai 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Find any well-known tafsir and you find same there. Go to wikipedia aticle Tafsir and start following the external URL given at the bottom. I hope you will recognize those URL as they are given in a wikipedia article. Tell me that how many are saying what User:Pecher is saying. For example See http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=60&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0 These people are already converted in apes as punishment at the time of Prophet David (PBUH).
Oh I am sorry. I forget one can use any Tafsir only against Islam and Dhimmi concept but not in favor of it. I know you will never be convince even if I give you whatever proof. However, I still have my two edits left so I will use them. --- Faisal 12:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I have gone to Islamonline and found that indeed the reference refers to people of the Book being turned into apes and pigs. You can use Tafsir as much as you like. Let me courage you to do so. But you have to provide proof. Now are you denying that Muslims referred, and still refer, to Jews and Christians as apes and pigs? Lao Wai 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I am really unable to understand what you have said above. So you find at Islamonline (please give URL) exactly what I am saying. That is some specific group of Jews were converted to pig before Muhammad (PBUH) at the time of Prophet David (PBUH) as a punishment. And Quran is not referring to ALL Jews and chiristians as pig/apes. So what is the point you are making? --- Faisal 12:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, it sounds as if you’ve declared an edit war. Though you’ve only one left, I'll advise you, as your first was itself a revert.
Some quotes from your link: "So that is the first lie of the Christians." "Such lies and distortions by Christians and Jews just expose their blatant ignorance." "So first things to note, that these verses are reffering to the JEWS. It has nothing to do with Christians." Thanks.
www.answering-christianity.com is not a reliable source, Faisal. I've also removed links to www.answering-islam.org on many occasions.
Also, would you stop with the PBUH's?Timothy Usher 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay I will never quote www.answering-christianity.com again OKAY??!. I find it while performing a quick search on Google, I am sorry. Now you tell me that is all the Tafsirs are also wrong. See following
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp . This URL is mentioned on Tafsir article too. Can I quote from there? I did not find any Tafsir that says ALL JEW and ALL Christians as pig/apes. --- Faisal 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I have to pay my respact by saying (Peace be upon him -- PBUH) when I named any prophet Muhammah (PBUH), David (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH)... What is your problem with that ? ---- Faisal 13:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right, Faisal. The Qur'an doesn't say God turned all Christians and Jews into apes and pigs, only some of them. And the article says? "These animalistic parallels were rooted in the Qur'anic verses describing some People of the Book being transformed into apes and pigs." Were they misusing this verse when they used these terms? Absolutely.
As for the honorifics, they erode your credibility as an editor of a secular encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 21:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, for me it is strange that respecting prophets erode my credibility however, I DO NOT care. You can say to anyone that because Faisal say PBUH hence he is not a credible person.
Secondly, may I say about USA. Many people in USA used to called all Muslims terrorist because few Muslims FBI believes were involved in [9/11] (reference is provided to FBI wanted list and some specific incidences). Or Many people in USA jails after [9/11] was held without any crime and were innocent (references is provided to some specific cases) so on.... Obviously, we both will agree that saying above things is extremely wrong. Furthermore, any article that has a collection of things like above would be an extremely bad article. This yucky article is nothing more than full of those kinds of things and hence is an example of an extremely bad article. I think we should nominate it for the worst article in wikiepdia. Is there any such category? please guide. --- Faisal 15:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, the system is working, but you just don't seem to understand how the system works. Have you read the Wikipedia policy and guideline articles that can be found quite easily via the 'Help' link on the left side of your page? You brought up a valid point about that verse in the Qur'an not referring to all Christians and Jews. But instead of editing the article paragraph to add the word 'some', you just blank it and leave it up to someone else to add the correction. Just because you don't like a historical fact doesn't mean you can erase it. Merzbow 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
May be you are new in this article Merzbow, that why you are said above things. I had added "some" in the past too but that was also reverted back. I had changed many articles including one that was very sensitive however, I am failed to have any of my change in this article. History can be mentioned. But..
1) It should not be one sided. Currently it is only one sided.
2) The principles of Islam should not be mixed with history. For example: Islam is against force convertion and abusing anyone. No one can get from these basic principle of Islam by reading this article. The article mix the Quran/Sunnah (principles of Islam) with FEW events in history, in such a way that it distort the whole picture of my great religion Islam. --- Faisal 09:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
If you added the word 'some' in the distant past and it was reverted, well, you should have brought up the issue forcefully then and asked for a third-party opinion/moderation. What you did now - deleting the entire passage - was simply wrong, no ifs, ands or buts. As for #1, I agree, it should not be one sided. I don't think it is. But Wikipedia is of course open to improvements in any article. But it's apparent in your #2 that you are showing that you don't understand what an encyclopedia is. This article is about the phenomenon of 'dhimma', and ALL that it implies - the history of it, the scriptural support for it, the controversy surrounding it. You cannot separate a discussion of the principles of Islam from the practice of Islam when talking about a uniquely Islamic entity like 'dhimma'. Merzbow 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all I am happy to find your views about neutrality. Believe me Merzbow you are much better than many editors of this article. Many editors here do not want to mention history when Dhimmi enjoyed a GUEST like status. The only want to choose and mentioned those specfic incidents that suit their aims. About #2, young students in Pakistan access wikipedia to know the stand of Islam. The wikipedia is also for them too (I assume). These students are intrested in knowing what Islam says about Dhimmi and that what this article do not tell. Also many might be interested in knowing the history too. So both can be mentioned but as long as message of Islam is not get confussed and misunderstood by the readers. For example if Islam is against abusing anyone then it should be clear for the article. If Islam is against force conversion of Dhimmi than it should be clear for the article. After making those things clear then you can mention the wrong doing of individuals on some specific times. Another example: If an article is about telling lie in Islam message and instead of mentioning Islam clear stand that Telling lie is one of the biggest sins. article one stress on mentioning only about Muslims that told lies then no one will be able to differentiate what is Islam stand. Obviously one can mention about liers Muslims but what is Islam stand on it should be clear. (sorry I should have lots of mistake in this writeup as I am in hurry to study for my exam. bye...) Once again good to know your fair views welcome and see you around. It would be great to have your support in editing the article and making it neutral --- Faisal
Well, the article already clearly references primary Islamic sources about dhimma, including the Qu'ran. It also talks about a related incident in Muhammad's life, and also how dhimma has been enacted throughout history. Whether or not this reflects badly upon Islam is not the responsibility of this article to address. If you want to include a POV quote from a modern Islamic scholar that clarifies what mainstream Islamic authorities think about dhimma, sure, go ahead. But remember that to maintain NPOV, Wikipedians have every right to also include a quote from a source with an opposing POV. Nobody here wants to spread untruth about Islam to any Muslim who reads the article. But the most Wikipedia can do is present facts, along with multiple POVs. You may think Islam teaches this or that, but that is only one POV. It maybe the most popular POV with the most support, but that doesn't mean that other POVs shouldn't be represented (although it's a Wikipedia policy that minority POVs should not be given as much space as majority POVs). Merzbow 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure all you said is great. However, I am sure that many facts about Islam are twisted badly in this article. You still believes that I could change it :). Okay I will give it a try once again, after my exams (around 5 June). Please be around and witness it yourself. I will like to hear from you that if my edit was fair or not. And then you will see them revert it back by fair edit. Also see this as an example from past. I tried to make intro more neutral by adding according to some scholars etc. but they revert it back. You like the SOME word and so do I. Remember there was NO new information that I had added, everything was mentioned already elsewhere. Only I tried to put things in the introduction so that it could be neutral, (acceptable for both parties) but :( ... In the above URL also check the editing-summary give by me and the reverter. --- Faisal 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Guest-like status? In their own countries? For which they had to pay heavy taxes and were regularly humiliated? Find me a positive experience of being a dhimmi. Islam is certainly against forced conversions of Dhimmis. Actually Muhammed said Muslims could tell a lie in three circumstances (war, to their wives and to make peace among Muslims) so it is not one of the biggest sins. Find something that is wrong. I'll support you changing it. Lao Wai 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Guest like status is much better than citizenship. The guest are treated very well in our part of world (remember Osama-bin-Laden was a guest of Taliban rulers and they leave their Govt. but decline to handover their Guest). In my part of world, one can give his life for his Guest security. If you are extremely hungry and have just one plate of food. Under these circumstances if a guest arrives. Then the host is supposed to give his food to his guest and sleep hungry himself. I cannot give references on the fly but above mentioned event is also related a Sahaba (Muhammad (PBUH) companion) life.
Now about telling lie: There are few sins that are consider Gunah-e-Kabira (Greatest sins) for Muslims. We Muslims know them from our childhood. Like adultary etc. Telling lie is one of them (Gunah-e-Kabira, the Greatest Sin). Once again I cannot give you reference without spending sometime (which I do not have due to my exams) but you could search on the web and might find many references yourself. A Muslim child hear from his parents, his teacher and everyone not to tell a lie because it is a greatest-sin. Telling lie is allowed in special cirmunstances. Yes. Many things are allowed in special circumstances. For example: a muslim is allowed to eat pig/dog (all the Haram ) things when he is going to die from hunger and he has to eat for saving his life. Even though eating pig is strickly prohibted in Islam but in special circumstances one can eat it.
Lastly, I have lost my hope for you Lao Wai because of our previous interaction. You declined to do what you said previously and not stand by your words. Remember previously you said that this article is about Dhimmi according to Quran and Sunnah. Later on you decline to stand by your own comments. Remember our discussion on our personal talk pages. I cannot believe you once again. --- Faisal 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


This yucky article is nothing more than full of those kinds of things and hence is an example of an extremely bad article. You may think that but many people around the world would be put to death for creating this article, such is the intolerant repressive nature of your religion. Also that an article that has some genuine criticism of your religion is somehow 'bad' JHJPDJKDKHI! 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Criticism is okay if both sides view are presented. For example see neutral articles like Osama bin Laden, Jizya etc. If you read those article and this article you would feel a big difference. --- Faisal 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Worst Article

following text is copied from marriage section of this worst article on wikipedia.

"Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non muslim) may marry a Muslim woman. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. Even as dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the People of the Book because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.[10] Touching a senstive point of the Muslim psyche, this prohibition was enforced with the utmost rigor, and any violations of it were severely punished.[11]"

This is just an example, the whole article is filled with such things and written on the same lines. Now Obviously according to above text MOST of the scholars does not think that wife is salave of husband. However, all the scholar agrees that a Muslim women cannot marry any non-muslim man. So the above text leave a question in the mind of any fair user. What is the logic of not marring non-Muslim wowen by MOST of the scholar. Why the logic of SOME scholars is presented above and hidding the logic given by MOST. It is just a propoganda article and nothing else. --- Faisal 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question, and it deserves to be addressed. Why don't you do the research to find out what the majority view is, and add it to the paragraph, properly sourced. I'm guessing that although the majority view almost certainly isn't that extreme, women throughout history in Islam still have been regarded as inferior to men in many ways, and so the same general argument for why marriage between dhimmi men and Muslim women was prohibited applies. This is not a slam against Islam, since almost all cultures on Earth have held similar views of women up until very recently. But this paragraph certainly is too POV.
There is a Muslim Guild organization at Wikipedia of people who are dedicated to improving Islam-related articles. It is made up of both Muslims and non-Muslims. Why don't you post a message on their talk page asking for people to take a look at this article and give their opinion, and perhaps improve it. The link is here: The Muslim Guild. Merzbow 21:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also a member of Muslim Guild. Do not worry I will contact each Muslim in wikipedia after my exams. Women status is bad in Islam is propoganda of West. Islam after lossing its status 50/60 years ago is under their propoganda. It is a bid debate, we can have someother day. However, you should be careful in believing what media told you. --- Faisal 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You need to come at this with an open mind, Faisal. Consider that there may be a difference between what Islamic sources teach, how they are interpreted, and how it is put into practice. No culture is innocent of the mistreatment of women up until very recent history. But anyways, Wikiepdia itself does not have an opinion on this matter. But in the articles we edit we are required by Wikipedia:NPOV to reflect the majority and minority opinions fairly and in proportion to the degrees to which they are held. Merzbow 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Faisal wrote, "Do not worry I will contact each Muslim in wikipedia after my exams."
This is really inappropriate.Timothy Usher 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There are tonnes of Islamic sources for inter-faith marriages including a Muslim. Just for kicks[5]<--link not only talking about marriage, but the whole Mahram/non-Mahram situation and[6]. Only problem is that these sources refer to non-Muslim / Muslim marriage, not specifically Dhimmi / Muslim marriage. But seen from a scolarly view (IMHO) there is no difference. Regarding inter-faith marriages including a Muslim from a non-scolarly view, I am a non-Muslim Dane, living in Denmark, married to a Muslim woman. And a survey amongst Danish Muslims show, that 48,5% of Danish Muslims would allow their daughters to marry a non-Muslim man (can't source it, it's on a Danish webpage hidden behind Java-scripts, Jyllands Posten, if anyone cares). This has nothing to do with Dhimmis in particular though. Iafrate 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So we now have groups sorry guilds that exist just to push POV on wikipedia, When the F*** did this happen! I thought that wikipedia was not a battlefield but now we have armies. Hypnosadist 15:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's an interest group, nothing more. I'm sure you just overlooked the fact that many atheists belong to the Muslim Guild. - Merzbow 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Armstrong (2000), p. 200
  2. ^ Armstrong (2000), p.30
  3. ^ Armstrong (2000), p. 200
  4. ^ Tafsir Nemooneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, on verse 9:29
  5. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia
  6. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia
  7. ^ Neck-Sealing in early Islam, by Robinson Chase F., (Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Volume 48, Number 3, 2005, pp. 401-441)
  8. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, conversion to Islam
  9. ^ Stillman (1979), p. 214; "Kird" Encyclopaedia of Islam Online
  10. ^ Friedmann (2003), pp. 161–163
  11. ^ Lewis 1984), p. 27
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhimmi/Archive_3&oldid=496236109"