Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Dhimmi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Discrimination is a fact

I see lots of political correctness claim by people who try to neutralise the discrimanting facts on Dhimmi. As long as the religion court refuse Dhimmi rights to testify on court, it is discriminate and violation of human rights. I see some people keep pouring more and more diversion by claiming some source "unreliable". Bad news to them : this will not change the facts. I don't see how this article "demonise" some religion. Indeed, this is historical facts. Today, if those country that worship the religion fail to "correct" the conditions of Dhimmi, I don't see why we should write "softer tone" over that particular religion. So all facts about discrimination upon Dhimi should stay. Sltan 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some people's 'facts' are loaded with their own bias against islam. We want to get rid of both pro and anti islamic sentiment and be left with the bare facts. In any case, we should try to avoid value judgements. Rather than stating that dhimmitude is descriminitory and a violation of human rights, we should just state how things were and let the reader decide for himself.--Dr.Worm 09:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The political status of Dhimmis during the time period shouldn't be thought of in terms of todays standards and ideas. Certainly, they were discriminated against. By todays standards, so harsh a word as discrimination might be too weak. However, this was happening in a time when tolerance was virtually unheard of in most places. When historians and scholars speak of religious freedom and tolerance, they are defining the terms relative to the situations and events from that time and before; the things that the people of the time could think of and learn from. Mr ScottM 05:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

MrScottM if this was just an historical concept your comments would be valid BUT that is not the case. There are currently armed groups enforceing this idea, and More who want to if they get the chance. So this concept needs to be compared current idea's of fairness and equality.Hypnosadist 10:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept of dhimma is discriminatory in its most basic sense. It creates a legal distinction between Muslims and others. Is it a violation of human rights? Whose human rights? and which instantiations of dhimma have violated them. The main problem I see is that many sources both Muslim and non-Muslim try to decomplexify the issue by conflating all instances of this system as either positive or negative in either an absolute or relative sense. This is of course problematic because in a relative sense dhimma has been preferable to other systems of the time while at other times it has been worse. Example: Ottoman Jews in the mid to late 1800s were discriminated against under the dhimma system. This was relatively good compared to the situations of pogroms in Eastern Europe this there began to be immigration of Jews to Ottoman land that had been oppressed under the European system (and those fleeing the pogroms were not necessarily Zionists). Relative to modern Western human rights standards Ottoman practice was a violation of human rights. Many instantiations of dhimma today are human rights violations. The problem is, the system is not homogenous and directed under a singular law... it varied immensely from place and time and what you get in the more popular readings on it is a highly politicized debate trying to represent the nature of Islam. This is to a great extent anthropology (or ethnography) and when you address these subjects it's necessary to not render judgment upon the actions. It's also important to line up power relations. Would an Arabian Hanbal jurist have called the Hindus dhimmi people? There is a good chance they wouldn't have. So, that ruling was accepted and implemented in Mughal lands because of the interaction of political necessity with religious ruling. Circumstances shape religion and we must take that into account. gren グレン 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

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

It is nice to first delete the tag and then looking for a list. --- Faisal 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right Hypnosadist. Because many editors think reliance on the regular scholarly sources is itself not neutral. We're being asked to compromise between NPOV/RS and IPOV/URS.Timothy Usher 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is because these pages are overly reliant on the work of pundits, not scholars.--Dr.Worm 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal the list should already be pressent if there were actualy specific disputed facts, i've been through several discussions on specific issue's and the tag is no where mentioned. What in your opinion SPECIFICALLY needs to be addressed to make this FACTUAL.Hypnosadist 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If an editor places a disputed tag on an article, that editor should explain, in detail, what is not factual about an article and provide credible sources to back up what they say. If they do not do that, then I would support removing the disputed tag.--Alabamaboy 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some evidences that the article is still disputed

Point #1.

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

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

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

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

Point #2.

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

Claim: *Not all POV's are included*

The tribute is jizya. View of some Islamic scholars on jizya:

The Shia jurist, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi states in Tafsir Nemooneh that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and Dhimmi's lives and properties on their behalf ^[1]

"Ayatollah Khumeyni states that dhimmis "have to pay the jizya tax in exchange for the protection they receive and in lieu of the taxes, such as zakat, that only Muslims pay."[3]

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

Point #3.

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

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

Claim: Contradiction.

Comment:

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

Point #4.

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

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

Evidence:

Jewish Encyclopedia says:

"Dhimmis were little disturbed during the rule of Ommiads (with the exception of Omar II) since "it was not in keeping with the worldly policy of those rulers to favor the tendencies of fanatical zealots."^[2] 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." ^[3]

Point #5.

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

~~:Sir Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century, in his "Call to Islam" has argued:~~

::This tax (jizya) was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that ‘the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.[4]

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)] Note: This quote is only and only supposed to get the back of the quote from JE (and could be striked if you would like). If you would like to reply to this comment, please start with addressing the JE quote. Thanks.

~~I made a mistake here. I just wanted to mention Dhimmi's condition during the Umayyad rule only with the purpose of getting back of the quote from JE. I take the other quote back.~~

~~Question: Why this sort of information is censored?~~
-
And there is much more to say... --Aminz 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
So there is, and I've not the time to deal with it all immediately, as you might like. For now, I might can say that the contemporary Islamic jurists do not constitute authorities on the history of Dhimma or Jizya. They are however sources for their own opinions - if the jurist is notable, so is the opinion.
The mistake is to think that this somehow mitigates, contradicts or must be set against scholars of the history of Dhimma. We might consider a new section, contemporary justifications for Dhimma. Just one idea. Feedback?Timothy Usher 07:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the mistake is to think that the contemporary Islamic jurists are doing nothing but "justifying" the Dhimma. Some may do to some extent but not with the intensity to call them all "justification" --Aminz 07:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My main point is that there's no contradiction between, Dhimma was like this, and, this scholar says this now. Anyhow, the two quotes you've given sound like justifications to me.Timothy Usher 07:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, they are some sort of justification to some extent. Simply because these scholars are raised in the modern era, but not because they are trying to "justify" (in the sense people use the term) dhimma. They are simply intensifying part of a truth. And believe me or not, right now, Dhimmi's in Iran have *important* privileges that Muslims don't have (they can drink alcoholic drinks, their women don't have to cover their hairs in their parties,...). In any case, wikipedia can simply report everything. "X says A", "Y says B",... It is better than "A is so". (AND ALSO the famous expression "It is believed A is so"!!!) --Aminz 08:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Encyclopedia and Thomas Arnold were already discussed above: the former is 100 years old, the latter's writings are perhaps 200 years old. These sources are not citable anymore; to prove it otehrwise, you have to show that contemporary scholars still rely on them. The rhetorics of Shi'a clerics is just that: rhetorics; the existing description of jizya as "tribute" is NPOV, factually correct, and supported by classical jurists, like Mawardi. The claim that something is factually incorrect is just a personal opinion not supported by reliable sources. Pecher ^Talk 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Encyclopedia is 100 years old but infact closer to the real incidents. Jewish Encyclopedia is a scholarly work. Let's ask for a couple of admins to give their opinions on this issue. My POV is that even if Jewish Encyclopedia contradicts another more recent work on a particular matter, we should write: "Jewish Encyclopedia(1911) says A but scholar X (2006) says B. Your POV is that Jewish Encyclopedia is outdated and is not citable anymore unless "I prove it" by "showing that contemporary scholars still rely on them". The contemporary scholars, I guess, should rely on the sources Jewish Encyclopedia has used, not on the Jewish Encyclopedia itself. Anyway, Let's ask for a couple of admins to give their opinions on this issue. I will invite a few of them, you please go ahead and invite a few as well. Thanks --Aminz 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"Ptolemy believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but contemporary scholars believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun." Is that your suggestion for Solar system? Please read WP:NPOV; we do not include opinions that are no longer held by contemporary scholars unless we write an article on the history of science. I am astonished at this confidence that one can somehow substitute research of multiple contemporary scholarly sources with anything that comes handy on the Internet. Pecher ^Talk 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all, both Ptolemy and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong. Neither moves around the other one. Secondly, I don't agree with your wholesale rejection of "Jewish Encyclopedia" arguing it is outdated. Thirdly, the contemporary physicist do have new sources, unavailable to Ptolemy, my question is that have contemporary historians invented a machine of time that helps them go back in the history? No, at best, they may find new archeological evidences, or ancient books. Now, if we were talking about an ancient mystery, I would have accepted your argument, but this is not the case with Dhimmi. Fourthly, we should not compare Historians with Physicist just because they are both called scholars. If I consider Physicist scientists, I call philosophers and historians as pseudo-scientist (according to my own definitions of course). People get their trust for academics from real scientists, and then generalize their trust to all who teach at university, expecting them to tell them “the truth” (not forgetting that physicist are also telling us night fables). Fifthly, most of what I said is irrelevant and I don’t know why I said them. My main request is to ask several admins to give their opinion. --Aminz 08:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Aminz, your post is very authoritative, as it's a lot closer to your area of expertise. There are several editors around these pages with backgrounds in something other than the humanities who cannot or are unwilling to apply this level of objectivity to matters related to the historical practice of religion. Not that I believe you in particular incapable or unwilling in this regard, but it's an important point that, where history is concerned, though the methodology differs, the intent is to approach it with the same standard of objectivity with which one might approach astrophysics.Timothy Usher 09:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, I am actually no authority. I am simply doing math. But my post shows part of the truth (as your post is showing) and these are not my own ideas. I can back up my ideas using philosophical sources. Even when we focus on physics (which is supposedly at the center), we have Einstein who says: "as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Also, the way we study history is itself criticized by scholars (e.g. that we tend to view the history in a progressive manner (as things get better and better - we naturally think we are living in a better place as 200 years ago people were living and we use our biases when we study history). Again, as I said, my comment were mostly irrelevant to the discussion here, sorry!--Aminz 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, I don't think this discussion irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the notion upon which several editors have become fixated, that this article along with several others is intended as or amounts to "propaganda against Islam" - it'd be as if the Copernican hypothesis were denounced as propaganda against the Earth.Timothy Usher 09:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your above post, Aminz, boils down to the assertion of your view of the study of history as a propaganda tool. You are free to hold whatever views you find necessary, but Wikipedia is a wrong place to push this sort of denigration of the work of historians. You have made another wild claim that more recent scholarship of history is always inferior to older scholarship; this claim is so nonsensical that I don't think it requires counterarguments. Pecher ^Talk 09:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My attribution of authority, Pecher, responded to Aminz' statement, "well, first of all, both Ptolemy and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong. Neither moves around the other one," which reflects a sophisticated understanding of physics. Additionally, he is right that history is not scientific in the way that a physical scientist would expect, causing many phyicial scientists to dismiss it along with the other humanities (in some case, rightly) as arbitrary. You are correct that this reflects a lack of understanding on the part of physical scientists. The scientific method is only one component of a broader approach that is aptly described as "objectivity."Timothy Usher 09:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I down wish to bring about a dispute what is and what is not science. Thankfully, we have WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS on Wikipedia; these policies and guidelines allow us to sidestep lengthy phylosophical disputes. Showing off some command of the general theory of relativity on Talk:Dhimmi is just pointless grandstanding on part of Aminz; he is not the only one here who studied physics. On the other hand, he edits history-related articles, it would not hurt him to know that historians work with documents and that new documentary evidence is found all the time; this is not to mention that existing evidence may always be re-interpreted. It equally wouldn't hurt to know that there is no such thing as objectivity, just commonly held opinions; this is what WP:NPOV is all about. Pecher ^Talk 09:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that there is no such thing as objectivity, if one considers objectivity as a philosophical approach to knowledge, rather than as an infallible point of view - it is actually the latter which is un-objective. WP:NPOV is really just a call to objectivity, which has been misunderstood here as assigning equal value to all points of view.Timothy Usher 09:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We cannot possibly be objective in tretament of a subject, but we can strive to present the views as fairly as possible. If that's what you describe as a "call to objectivity", then I wholeheartedly agree with it. WP:NPOV carefully avoids raising the issue of objectivity; all it says is that we must assign the greatest importance to the predominant view, while giving lesser importance to the view of a significant minority; assigning equal importance to all views is out of question. This is, however, one editor's approach to present a view of a contemporary Shi'a scholar as a counterweight to the view of everybody else; preferably, the view of the Shi'a scholar in question must be presented in the intro, in several paragraphs with lengthy direct quotes. Pecher ^Talk 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And one editor's approach is simply removing the whole thing and then waiting for a month or so to let the person know about the reasons for the removal. Maybe that person could find more scholars saying the same thing if he knew why his edits were removed. --Aminz 10:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I have requested several admins to comment on this issue. Thanks. --Aminz 09:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Pecher, the policy as stated is merely making an end-run around the issues by anchoring policy to reliable sources, and rightfully so. But the underlying reason for this is that said reliable sources are based upon, more often than not, what passes for an objective - and secular - approach to knowledge. WP policy is effectively, what is accepted, or not, in Western academia is accepted, or not, here. As stated - and only as stated - it's value-free.Timothy Usher 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~-> Please add your comments here:~~
I've been contacted by Aminz to give my opinion to this debate that envolves the Jewish encyclopaedia (JE). I've never contributed to this article (Dhimmi) as i lack knowledge about the subject. I am also between relying on the JE and not to rely on. I've seen whole articles written -i'd say word by word from JE like History of the Jews in Morocco. My suggestion to you guys is to contact Jayig or El C. I trust those two users/admins and i am sure they'll be very helpfull in this case. Cheers -- Szvest 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
~~I am Copy/Pasting Tony Sidaway's opinion from his talk page: (Aminz 10:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC))~~
"We have entire articles based on the 1911 Britannica, so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant. --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"
We have entire articles based on original research so that's a perverse analogy. Give me an example of a featured article using 1911 Britannica. Pecher ^Talk 11:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Here's your answers from Hypnosadist:~~
This sentance could probably be writen slightly better to show there were forced and "enlightened" conversions (talk about a POV name).

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

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

This can be made acurrate by changing to "and the requirement under some rulers to wear distinctive clothing." giving the above JE quote as one of the sources. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.

Sir Thomas Arnold directly contradicts the words of many islamic jurists in why they say the jizya is enforced. These include Ibn Kathir, the jurists and the reasons they state in legal opinion are vastly more notable than what a european historian THINKS THEY THINK!Hypnosadist 11:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz reply to Hypnosadist
Hypnosadist: 1 This sentance could probably be writen slightly better to show there were forced and "enlightened" conversions (talk about a POV name).
See the sentence first mentions the restrictions of Dhimmi's and then based on that tries to make an statement about the conversion of Dhimmis. Either the details for "enlightened" conversions must be also included in the intro, or the whole paragraph should be explained in more detail somewhere else. --Aminz 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist: 2 1)Ayatollah Khumeyni states nothing of the sort, its a notation to his speach writen later by ??? 2)We've been through this before Zakat is something Mulsims CHOOSE to do to be good muslims, Jizya is a tax dhimma are FORCED to pay to keep breathing.
1. Note that the website is the official website of "Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting".

2. Yes, this appears in the footnote but aren't footnotes written by the scholars themselves? I believe they are "by default" and if one wants to oppose it, the burden of providing the proof is on his side.

3. Even "assuming" it wasn't written by Khomeni, this appears in the official website of "Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting". Doesn't this imply its authenticity?
Regarding your point #2, yes, Zakat is a mandatory charity but Jizya is a tax payed as a sign of dhimmi's acceptance of Islamic government. This does not make the quotes wrong. From an economic perspective, the quotes are right. --Aminz 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist: 3 The constant tension between rulers who want to keep a Cash crop in the form of dhimmi's (who pay more per-capita) and religious leaders who want to convert everyone is not well explained. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.
~~That can be a good addition, but I can simply see a contradiction there. --Aminz 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Hypnosadist: 4 This can be made acurrate by changing to "and the requirement under some rulers to wear distinctive clothing." giving the above JE quote as one of the sources. I've supported a geograph/temporal arangement to show the best, worst and most notable examples of these laws being enacted.
~~This solves the factuality. But also, if under some rulers, Dhimmi's had a good condition, we should mention them as well in the intro. --Aminz 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Hypnosadist: 5 Sir Thomas Arnold directly contradicts the words of many islamic jurists in why they say the jizya is enforced. These include Ibn Kathir, the jurists and the reasons they state in legal opinion are vastly more notable than what a european historian THINKS THEY THINK!Hypnosadist 11:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sir Thomas Arnold quote was replaced with another quote. But another point deserves to be made. The quote appears in http://www.islamonline.net which is a reliable source. This, together with two other quotes from the shia scholar shows that the view of modern scholars has changed from the view of scholars in the past. The article can simply report this instead of removing the current views because they contradicts some past views. --Aminz 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

~~Some evidences that the article is still disputed II~~
"Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century" keeps being quoted (Point #5). This is intentionally wrong. Arnold lived from 1795-1842 and focused on Roman history and the education policy of his era. What little he knew on Islam's history has been superseded long ago. I don't assume good faith as this has been pointed out repeatedly; it's indicative of the approach of endless, unabashed filibustering.
Pecher:"Ptolemy believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but contemporary scholars believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun."

Aminz: "Well, first of all, both Ptolemy and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong."
For the record: the contemporary scholars are correct. For the argument's sake, Pecher just happened to refer to a popular, abrigded, and therefore imprecise version of their position. Again: unabashed filibustering, pars pro toto.
Aminz: "Jewish Encyclopedia is 100 years old but infact closer to the real incidents" ...inferring that the more recent the scholarly research, the more unreliable it gets. No comment on that. It's just one example of many showing Aminz unabashedly trying to impose his interpretation of historic reasearch, not caring about WP's standards on the issue.
Tony Sidaway: "We have entire articles based on the 1911 Britannica" Since when do articles relying on outdated information set standards? "...so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant.": contemporary scholars are to decide on any EJ assumption's relevance, not wikipedians. EJ's assesments contradicted by contemporary research are plainly not relevant. --tickle me 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My comment has been taken out of context to imply a blanket endorsement for the Jewish Encyclopedia which I did not intend. I was simply addressing the suggestion, relayed to me by a third party, that an encyclopedia shouldn't be cited if it's "out of date". We do have many articles, including several featured articles, which are based on articles lifted straight from the 1911 Britannica. While the original text was used as a basis, the out-of-date portions were subsequently updated through the normal wiki process. See absinthe for an example of such an article that has reached featured status from such a start. A similar process is being used for introducing material from the Jewish Encyclopedia to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur an didn't doubt it: there are proper wikipedic uses for the EJ indeed. However, Aminz' points 1,3 and 4 rely on it's improper use, as contemporary research contradicts Aminz' EJ based inferences. Thus pointing to what's obviously indisputable (cite and use EJ where relevant) diverts from the issue at hand: mounting a dispute on preposterous claims and citing EJ where it's not relevant but actually misleading. --tickle me 13:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I won't say anything about the current dispute, but it doesn't seem quite right to reject something out of hand just because you can find modern sources that say otherwise. I suggest that you work together on writing about the apparent discrepancy, since the Jewish Encyclopedia presumably had scholars with access to first hand accounts of the Dhimmi. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, I see that you striked out the reference to Thomas Arnold, as that point didn't even hold the pretense of water. However, you didn't do that with his quote. On what authority?. On the one of islamonline's anonymous group of Islamic researchers?. Besides, who is point 5's Mr. Welldiorant, unknown to the rest of the world, if it wasn't for three mentions on islamic websites lacking any academic repute (forums.understanding-islam.com / bismikaallahuma.org / ummah.com)? Why must we deal with argumentation of that quality? And why do admins accept it as basis for dispute tags? --tickle me 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz has requested that I comment here. The Jewish Encyclopedia is marginally acceptable if you can't find any other source, but it should not really be relied on if better sources are available. Graetz was good in his time, but 100 years have passed, and historiography is much more accurate and sophisticated now. When it comes to history, one should rely on more modern sources where possible, especially when the modern sources post-date the older ones by a century. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Jayjg. The story is that on Dhimmi article, Pecher thinks the article is both factual and neutral and wants to remove the disputed tags. However several arguments (at Dhimmi) has been made to show the article is not undisputed (using JE). Pecher believes JE is outdated and can not be cited in wikipedia. So, "all" those arguments simply go away. For example, JE states that there were "enlightened" conversions to Islam, Gacs gives a couple of reasons for that, fine, someone else may give other reasons but this at least shows that all conversions to Islam were not either forced or because of the situation of Dhimmi's in Muslim lands. Can you please somehow explain to me how this contradiction could be explained? --Aminz 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~If all the arguments based on the Jewish Encyclopedia are gone, what contradiction is left to explain? Pecher ^Talk 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~No, I was explaining your argument for Jayjg. I think the article still needs more work to become "undisputed". --Aminz 09:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~
As an outsider to this, I'm surprised that those disputing the article aren't addressing what appears to be the real issue: the extremely loaded language of the article. In its present form, the article seems to be a hack job on Islamic governance. For instance, "Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs." This seems somewhat anhistorical because it introduces modern concepts of jurisprudence, to whit the right of all subjects of a country to equal protection at law, into an ostensibly historical account. The unequal treatment at law has historically been applied by rulers to minorities, particularly for religious reasons. Thus the statement in its present form appears to have more of a polemical effect (to highlight the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states) than to inform the reader. Such undesired effects should probably be avoided, lest Wikipedia's article in Dhimmis come to closely resemble a political treatise against Islamic governance. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony you seem to misunderstand, Dhimmi is not a historical concept it is part of Sharia today. But i do not understand how an artical could be written about these laws which are dedigned to discriminate without it "highlight the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states".Hypnosadist 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, but you said in tha above that modern scholars contradict traditional scholars! If Shariah is defined as what the Islamic scholars say, it will be more a historical concept. --Aminz 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if Dhimmi is not a historical concept, then one can add the quote from Allameh Tabatabaei, a prominent contemporary Shia scholar, to the article. He states if "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should deal with dhimmis stricly in a good and decent manner. ^[4]--Aminz 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that we have a section on dhimma on the modern world, you can probably re-introduce the Tabatabaei quote there as an example of what modern Islamic scholars think about dhimma laws. - Merzbow 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a good idea. --Aminz 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs" is clearly intended to be a historical appraisal of the dhimmi status (use of the past tense). This is why I address its anhistorical nature. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but original research. Pecher ^Talk 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made an observation that the wording of the part of the article that I have cited is anhistorical. Could you please explain your statement that this opinion by a reader is "original research". You've got me really puzzled there. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's easy: everything that you cannot attirbute to verifiable reliable sources is original research. Pecher ^Talk 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If even observations (ie opinions) expressed by editors about whether an article is balanced or unbalanced could be discounted because they were original research, then obviously we wouldn't be able to get any editing done. No obviously you may disagree with my observation, but to discount it as "original research" would be quite absurd. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've supported the creation of the modern dhimmi section,which should have quotes from modern scholars as well as the information on jizya being collected off the Copts in egypt and Hizbut al tariha wanting to impose "old school" dhimmi laws. Also what do the saudi fundamentalists say.(Also the ban on non-muslims at mecca? is that dhimmi law?).Hypnosadist 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The ban on polytheists at Mecca comes from a qur'anic verse. Hypnosadist, I think you have made a good collection of negative points. What about positive points? But in any case, you have done your job; someone else (whom I think we should wait for to come) should do the rest. --Aminz 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The continued page protection is simply unproductive. It's clear that the NPOV tag should remain for now since there are several who feel there are NPOV issues and are willing to make their case in detail and engage on the talk page. - Merzbow 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I'll unprotect for now but if the squabbles about whether the tag should remain continue I'll call to have it protected again. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious that the neutrality of this article is currently disputed, but is the factual accuracy also disputed? Just asking.Timothy Usher 05:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If I were to get involved in editing this article, I'd have some serious problems with the factual accuracy of the current version (as I indicated briefly above). But I'll leave that to the involved editors to decide. I'll not protect the article again but I'll watch it and may call for reprotection if the squabbling breaks out again. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, sometimes neutrality and factual accuracy of an article are entangled together. For example, assume scholar X says "A is true"; scholar Y says "B is true". If one only writes scholar X says "A is true", the article becomes un-neutral. If one writes "A is true" the article will become both un-neutral and un-factual. --Aminz 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Simple solution. Rename the article to "Dhimmi, according to Bat Ye'or and Bernard Lewis". The article is overburdened with the views of a handful of orientalists. In addition to that, as Tony points out, the article is effectively a series of polemic statements deriding the historic practices that occured under the Dhimmi system. If this article isn't a commentary (and POV-driven indictment) on history, then there's the burden to prove that Shariah as practiced today also supports the kinds of restrictions on dhimma that the article claims it to. Sections discussing history should make it clear that their content is historical, and should not contrast events and policies practiced in the 8th or 10th century with standards we accept today. Sections dealing with contemporary usage of dhimma in countries that run under Shariah should make it clear what aspects of the dhimmi system are still being practiced. His Excellency... 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Protected_1~~
~~From my announcement on WP:ANI :~~
There seemed to be an unproductive edit war over whether the article was disputed. From the talk page there do seem to be disputes, which one party is denying are significant disputes. Accordingly I've protected the article until the parties at least can agree on terms of reference. [5]
Sorry for not placing this notice here earlier.
Note please that the version on which this article is protected does not reflect any authoritative content pronouncement. On the face of it, however, there does seem to be some kind of dispute going on. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I see no dispute here! --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Cyde, Just wondering if there were no dispute, then why did I ask you to help resolving the dispute? --Aminz 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~ interesting expression!!! I just understood its meaning --Aminz 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Meanwhile~~
Looking at a recent edit, I see that someone clarified the meaning of "free" in the opener as "(e.g. non-slave)". Clearly he meant i.e. (id est) rather than e.g. (exampli gratia). Any objections if I correct this common error on the protected page? --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Quite right, Tony, as you usually are. No objection.Timothy Usher 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~The minor correction "e.g." -> "i.e." has been made. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Bringing Up To Standards~~
To avoid edit warring, let's work by consensus. I think it's agreed that statements need to be cited, and that it's not enough to cite, but to reflect the source accurately. Statements that are either uncited or incorrectly cited need to be corrected, or removed.
Starting from the top, there's this sentence: "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the 7th century until modern times [citation needed]. " Can we agree to substute 'until modern times' with something more appropriate? I suggest something like "from the 7th century, and is still practiced in countries such as...". Since only a handful of countries actually apply Shariah, and only few that practice it still hold the dhimma thing, this shouldnt be a problem. His Excellency... 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
We have the quote for the modern implimentation its http://memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SP110306 and refers to jizya being collected off the egyptian copts. Above we were just reaching concensus on this quote as no challenge to its factual accuracy was forthcoming. Second there is the whole implicit dhimmi is still part of sharia/what is sharia law argument. His excellency please read all the talk page. Also this wording was a previously accepted compromise this is a big can of worms your opening again.Hypnosadist 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Now i find out that you were editing here when the concensus was reached for that wording just under a different name. I think it is a bit off for you to now want to re-open the discussion under a different name.Hypnosadist 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Exactly. The consensus was that this is the most we could say without reliable sources to inform the reader that dhimmi laws are no longer widely practiced. - Merzbow 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Why should anything be said without reliable sources? And if keeping the can of worms closed means having this article effectively read like an indictment of shariah from the view of a handful of orientalists, opening that can of worms might not be a bad idea. If implicit dhimmi is still part of Shariah, does that include prohibiting Jews from wearing sandals as the article claims? I can't help but feel the article is deliberately vague on the distinctions between historical practices and the core rules regarding nonMuslims according to Shariah. The article merely highlights the most oppressive of actions and presumes that all the Muslim World embraces those policies. His Excellency... 19:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Because leaving a reader who just skims the first paragraph with the completely false impression that all Muslim countries today still enforce the laws of dhimma is a gross abdication of our responsibilities as encyclopedia contributors. - Merzbow 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I agree merzbow i only wanted to get rid of the word abolished as that was factual incorrect.Hypnosadist 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I think the edit to the intro is good and less all encompasing.Hypnosadist 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Alleged misrepresentation of a source~~
In the first paragraph of the article we read:
"Living in areas conquered by Muslims, these people were reduced to the status of second-class subjects^[5] and tributaries of a Muslim state.^[6]"
While in the source we read (I am exactly quoting most of the page 62 of Lewis 1984):

"In most respects the position of non-Muslims under traditional Islamic rule was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in the medieval Europe, not to speak of some events in modern Europe or, for that matter, the modern Middle East. But their status was one of legal and social inferiority or, as we would say nowadays, of second-class citizenship. At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society. But the phrase deserves a closer look. Second-class citizenship, though second-class, is a kind of citizenship. It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all. It is certainly preferable to the kind of situation that prevails in many states at the present time, where the minorities, and for that matter even the majority, enjoy no real civil or human rights in spote of all the resplendent principles enshrined in the constitutions, but utterly without effect. A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.
Under Muslim rule such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews. It ceased to be accepted when the rising power of the Christendom on the one hand and the radical ideas of the French revolution on the other caused a wave of discontent among the Christian subjects of the Muslim states, an unwillingness to submit to the humiliations or even to threat or possibility of humiliation, which existed in the old older….."
So, the source mentions the definition and negative connotations of the word "second-class" in our language but feels it necessary to make it clear that those negative connotations were not there before the time of French revolution. The alleged accusation is that the article picks the sentence "second-class" out of its context and the details and uses it consciously, hiding the fact that our moral standards of citizenship has changed over time which is mentioned in details by the source . This at best can be construed as original research and at worst dishonesty. --Aminz 08:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a completely specious accusation. The point that Bernard Lewis is making there is that the concept of citizenship is very recent, so it's not technically correct to say that dhimmis were second-class citizens, but rather subjects. On the page cited and elsewhere, Lewis makes it very clear that dhimmis held indeed a position inferior to Muslims; this is an abovious point that no one ever disputed. See also a reference to another book Arabs in History, where Lewis refers to dhimmis as "second-class citizens" without any qualifications. Pecher ^Talk 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, if this interpretation of the source is your doing, this would make the second time you've been accused of maliciously misquoting a source to back your POV. What the text says is obvious: That nonmuslims were treated as second-class citizens, which was by medieval standards a great deal better than how Christian nations treated non-Christians. It goes on the say that while the notion of second-class citizenry might be seen negatively today, back then such a status would be appreciated. Good work, Aminz. His Excellency... 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
True, citizenship is a modern concept (point: second class subject directs to second class citizen) and I am with you that "it is not technically correct to say that dhimmis were second-class citizens, but rather subjects". I *think* people nowadays are classified according to their nationality but used to be classified according to their religion. I am also with you that "On the page cited and elsewhere, Lewis makes it very clear that dhimmis held indeed a position inferior to Muslims; this is an obvious point that no one ever disputed." Lewis believes Non-Believers, women and slaves didn't have the same right as "Muslim male believers" had (here we are using the modern definition of rights and equality). But I can not honestly see how this was relevant to my comment. The concept of human rights and strict equality of all is also a modern concept. According to the medieval moral standards, Dhimmi's were not discontent of their situation. In their standards, "such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews." They become discontent only after their standards changed. Lewis somewhere else says that Muslims were not criticized at that time for their misbehavior; the criticisms were centered on the validity of their religious claims.

Noting that our readers are modern readers, Lewis needs to explain this historical change of the standards. The article does not. Lewis is very careful in using the term "second class citizen" (the link article directs to) since "At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society."

My suggestion is that this sentence is better to be revised. It should be pointed out that in medieval times, Dhimmis were not only discontent but for example Jews were gratitude. But yet, later after French revolution when their standards changed, they became discontent. --Aminz 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"But their status was one of legal and social inferiority or, as we would say nowadays, of second-class citizenship." If you quoted the text accurately, what Bernard Lewis is in fact saying is that nonMuslims were given 'second class citizenship', which isn't such a bad deal since other Christian nations didn't recognize members of other faiths at all. He mentions that 'second class citizen' is considered a a form of discrimination today with the intention of reminding readers that what we consider norms today were not norms back then. That Jews of the time acknowleged this, and accordingly showed 'gratitude'. His Excellency... 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this is misreprisenting the source, as Lewis's artical goes on to contextualise the concept of "second class citizen" not to change its meaning. He points out that this rank is better having no citizenship (non-person) or even worse being an "threat to the state" and being hunted down (as catholics were in england under Elizabeth the first). I think this means second class citizen accurately discribes the status of Dhimmi both citizens and having less rights that a muslim.Hypnosadist 11:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, the source was cited accurately. Aminz's objections seem to stem from the fact that the article does not dwell at length about the concept of citizenship in general and second-class citizenship in particular. This is, however, a wrong article for such arguments. Here, it is sufficient to observe that dhimmis were second-class subjects, which is the opinion of most scholars. The only disagreeing scholar that I know of is S.D. Goitein according to whom dhimmis were not subjects/citizens, but rather aliens with a certain legal relationship to the Muslim state. This is hardly an improvement over second-class citizenship. Lewis' statements about the attitudes of Jews and Christians towards their status are polemical over-generalizations with which hardly every scholar would agree. We cannot verify whether all Jews always felt gratitude for being dhimmis, can we? The article at the moment does a good job by steering away from polemics and sticking to describing the Islamic legal concept of dhimmi and how that concept was applied in practice; there is no need in turning the article into a polemical battleground. Pecher ^Talk 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The content of the article must faithfully reproduce the works used to support it as citations. I don't know for sure if you introduced that content; if you did, you must convey what Bernard Lewis was conveying. The content as presented in the article suggests the editor was fishing for information within the book that would support a certain POV, while ignoring the author's own statements that would have made the content more neutral. Bernard Lewis considered Dhimmis as second class citizens, but went at lengths to point out that this was something to be appreciated when you compare the lands under Muslim rules to other empires (notably Christian) that they were competing against. This isn't polemics, it's context explained by a scholar who's work was ~~exploited~~ used. An editor who had an ounce of good faith would have conveyed that point in its totality. His Excellency... 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote is accurrate it must stay please don't delete, H.E you have yet to produce a reason that this is inaccurate. The argument that this was comparitivly good treatment has no bearing on the quote and is explained by lewis himself in the reference. It is Factually accurate to say dhimmi are second class citizens for the reasons i say above.Hypnosadist 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Inaccuracy had nothing to do with it. The verse itself is quoted, it hardly needs a preceding expanation which effectly uses the same language to convey the same message. That's called 'redundancy'. Aside from that, I didn't delete anything, I merely added. His Excellency... 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
~~The extended Lewis quote was moved not deleted.Hypnosadist 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Wikipedia is not a random collection of quotes, even those that some editor like; there is Wikiquote established exactly for that purpose. Encyclopedia articles must summarize the content of sources, not quote dozens oif paragraphs from them. Pecher ^Talk 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Abuse of Sources~~
WP:RS distinguishes between a fact, as defined in Wikipedia, and an opinion. I've seen on two entirely different pages, allegations being made against a particular user for misquoting a sources and deliberately misinterpreting them. The deliberate misuse of Stillman has been noted, and now the usage of Bernard Lewis' work is being questioned. This needs to be looked into. If a fact conveyed by an author is not contradicted in other publications, that there is no dispute (read WP:RS), then it can be treated as a fact. Anything else must be attributed to its respective author, and not presented as if it were indisputable fact acknowleged by the article. Apparently a few users here have also totally lost sight of what "NPOV" is. In light of these frequent allegations of misuse of sourced by the same individual, I recommend other evaluate all sources and see that what the source states is faithfully produced in the article content. His Excellency... 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have access to some of these books. Somebody needs to look up the content here that's supported by Tritton's work, as well as Stillman's and Lewis'. I think there's alot more 'misrepresentation' to be found. The second paragraph mentions Jews having to wear certain clothing and suffering certain restrictions, presenting that fact as a characteristic standard of the Dhimmi State. Another sentence mentions Dhimmis being under the thread of mob attacks. What exactly do the sources say? His Excellency... 16:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So disagree that dhimmi's are second class citizens, simple find a reputable source that says dhimmis had identical rights then it can be changed to Lewis said that.Hypnosadist 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the 'second class citizen' phrase, i'm simply saying the context needs to be included as the source explains it. But on other matters, sources need to be examined, since a bit of deceptively selective quoting is seems to be going on here (see Banu Nadir talk page for another instance). His Excellency... 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is not about how Christians in France or Spain treated Jews. The article is about how Muslims treated Christians and Jews. It is absolutely inappropriate to qualify everything in this article with statements like "Sure, they had it bad in Muslim countries, but the Jews had it worse under Queen Isabella of Spain!" If you want to create an article about the situation of minorities in medieval Europe, then do so. But that information does not belong here. - Merzbow 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote is not judging whether Muslims are tolerant - 'second-class citizens' or 'second-class subjects' is a factual term for those who have fewer legal rights than others. It is a statement of fact that dhimmis had fewer legal rights. - Merzbow 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Mentioning "'second-class citizens' or 'second-class subjects' maybe factual" but it is unfaithful to the source which goes on to make our understanding clear. Please read my quote from page 6x above once again please. Thanks --Aminz 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow is absolutely right. The article must stick to the subject, which happens to be the Islamic legal concept fo dhimmi and its application in practice (I think I'm getting tired of repeating this point). Discussions on entirely judgmental matters, like whether it was better to be a dhimmi under the Abbasids or a Jew in the 15-century France or that we should not judge the past with contemporary values do not belong here. If someone is eager to record somebody else's value judgment, then there are all sorts of "criticism" articles for that. Pecher ^Talk 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Pecher, have you read the Lewis 1984? --Aminz 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~What's the point of this question? Comment on content, not on editors. Pecher ^Talk 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Give me time to back up myself from Lewis 1984. I need time. Lewis has written a book on "Jews of Islam" (so it is supposed to be about the Jews of Islam) but frequently compares them with others. He makes the necessity of "comparison" clear. Give me time to back up myself (I may need to run now, but will back at night). Just for now, Merzbow& Pecher, please reserve your judgments on this matter. None of us are history scholars, I think.--Aminz 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Lewis does not talk about the necessity of comparison. He points out (correctly, of course) that like must be compared with like and that it is wrong to compare one's theory with somebody else's practice or one's best examples with somebody else's worst examples. These are obvious points, but they are applicable only in one case: if you actually do the comparison, but we are not going to do the comparison here. Comparisons inevitably involve value judgments and comparing the treatment of dhimmis in Islam and religious minorities in Christendom accross time and space is such a vast subject that no one, as far as I know, ever dared touch it. After all, why compare with the Christendom only, why not include China, India, and the rest of the world, just for "context"? All the article does now is make a couple of obvious points on which everyone agrees: that the position of dhimmis was the worst in Morocco, Yemen, and Persia and that the times of decline brought about hardening of attitudes towards dhimmis. It is highly unlikely that the article will make even a step further from this. Pecher ^Talk 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lewis states:
Some background of development of our standards from page 1:
For Christians and Muslims alike, tolerance is a new virtue, intolerance a new crime. For the greater part of the history of both communities, tolerance was not valued nor was intolerance condemned. Until comparatively modern times, Christian Europe neither prized nor practiced tolerance itself, and was not greatly offended by its absence in others. The charge that was always brought against Islam was not that its doctrines were imposed by force- something seen as normal and natural- but that its doctrines were false.
Page 6:
What indeed do we mean by tolerance? In dealing with such subjects there is an inevitable tendency to assess and evaluate by comparison. If we speak of tolerance in Islam, we shall soon find ourselves measuring tolerance in Islam against tolerance in others societies- in Christendom, in India, in the Far East, or perhaps in the modern West. (Then Lewis goes on explaining what kind of comparison is valid…)

Page 7-8:
…, the term “tolerance” is still most commonly used to indicate acceptance by a dominant religion of the presence of others. Our present inquiry is limited to one question: How did Islam in power treat other religions? Or, to put it more precisely, how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects?
Whether this treatment deserves the name of tolerance depends, as already noted, on the definition of terms. If by tolerance we mean the absence of discrimination, there is one answer; if the absence of persecution, quite another. Discrimination was always there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice. Persecution, to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical...
So, as we see from page 7, Merzbow, tolerance is related to "second-class citizenship".

Page 6, Pecher and Merzbow, talks about what we mean by tolerance and how we define it.

Page 1, background on the development of the concept of tolerance. --Aminz 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The question boils down to whether it is fair to quote Lewis' use of the term 'second-class' in relative isolation from his succeeding sentences, given the present-day meaning around 'second-class'. I would be willing to compromise and say that we could add a clause to the end of that sentence in the intro that says something like "but were in principle guaranteed certain rights under Islamic law." - Merzbow 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, I believe historical context should be added there (if the term second class appears there; the context should be added as well). We should inform the reader to adjust his standards at the very beginning of this article (as lewis does in his book). We need to quote how Lewis views this issue and not how some of us view this. The Dhimmi's themselves were not discontent with their status. Jews were indeed gratitude. BTW, my problem is not only with the first paragraph, but with some other quotes from Lewis as well. --Aminz 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the extended lewis quote to the status of dhimmi section as that is the place it should be and i think its a good idea to keep it in there as it adds good info. I do not want to get into a how nice was dhimmi "CHAT" now all i'll say is my usual comment that dhimmi is NOT an historical concept as it is still an active part of Fatwa's.Hypnosadist 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a valid point. Alot of this article is confusing, particularly the intro. Readers unfamiliar with the topic will wonder whether what's being discussed here is a historical even/policy, or current issue. In truth, it's a bit of both. I think it's a mistake to assume that a shariah system implemented today would host the same practices regarding Dhimmis as was practiced in 840AD. Of course, some groups probably DO intend on implementing such archaic policies, and those cases should be documented as well. I think this article needs a bit of a rewrite differentiating between historic practices and current views on the dhimma. His Excellency... 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are able to find reliable sources that actually discuss the policies or the proposed policies of modern-day Muslim countries as they relate to dhimma law, then let us know. I can't find any. - Merzbow 20:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong that dhimmis were 'not discontent' with their status in general; the Lewis quote clearly says that Christians accepted it with 'resignation'. To imply that any group of people enjoy being legally inferior to any other group is no more than justification for oppression. Medieval Christians may have often been worse oppressors of minorities than Muslims, but it doesn't make oppression justified. The fact that the Christians fought against the Muslim armies who conquered them and made them dhimmis is proof enough that they did not submit willingly. - Merzbow 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
* Merzbow, did I do a bad job in presenting the Lewis quotes for you? Lewis says: "Until comparatively modern times, Christian Europe neither prized nor practiced tolerance itself, and was not greatly offended by its absence in others." - "The charge that was always brought against Islam was not that its doctrines were imposed by force- something seen as normal and natural- but that its doctrines were false." - "Under Muslim rule such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews. It ceased to be accepted when the rising power of the Christendom on the one hand and the radical ideas of the French revolution on the other caused a wave of discontent among the Christian subjects of the Muslim states"

* Merzbow, they saw it as something normal & natural & according to lewis indeed necessary. --Aminz 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the overall point that needs to be considered is that if things were reversed and Christians ruled over Muslims, the Muslims would probably be burnt to death as heretics. That's Lewis' point. At the time, Muslims did give the dhimma recognition and allowed them to practice their religion.It gave them the right to own property, and demanded that Muslims respect that property. In the Christian ruled lands, Muslims were simply put to death. Much of this article focuses on Muslim treatment of Jews, probably with the intent to demonstrate Muslims are categorically anti-semitic. It's useful to note that many, many centuries later, countries like England and France banished Jews altogether. Germany, an overwhelmingly Christian country, did considerably worse than just tax the Jews. His Excellency... 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no anti-semitics against the Jewish people in Islam (according to a definition), "unlike Christianity": Lewis says in page 85: "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctorine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history. " --Aminz 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
These are all completely pointless exercises in value judgments. This is an encyclopedia article, and as such it must be free from value judgments whatsoever. Discussions as to whether dhimma was tolerant or intolerant, and if tolerant than by the standards of whom, completely miss the point. I understand the urge of some editors here to sweeten the pill by adding that everything must be judged within its historical context or that the concept of second-class citizenship is a relatively new one, but all of that is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. Islamic law and the practice of its application: these are the only things that matter here. Regarding "second-class subjects", let's summarize the discussion briefly. Were dhimmis of the second class? Yes, their status was inferior to those of Muslims. Were they subjects? You bet it. Nothing left to debate thus. Pecher ^Talk 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Pecher, we should explain the context in which things happen. We can not look at the concept only from the modern eyes. Lewis himself describes it as what polematics do. He explains what kinds of comparison are allowed. Since our readers are modern people, if we don't mention anything, they'll look at things from a modern point of view. --Aminz 00:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're being disengenuous, as always. The article is littered by commentary taken from individuals who've dedicated their lives to pushing their polemic agenda. Daniel Pipes isn't a matter-of-fact historian who merely documents history. He is an Islamophobe devoted to disenfranchising Muslims in the the West. Bat Ye'or too has devoted her life to her anti-Muslim and anti-Muslim stance. And yet these devout advocates of the anti-Muslim movement get disproportionate representation in these articles. Your deliberate misrepresention of sources that didn't go all the way in pushing your POV is being discussed on two different talk pages. You're not one to talk on 'value judgements'. His Excellency... 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, you are just not reading the quote correctly. Do you understand what "accepted with resignation" means? Here is the dictionary definition of resignation: "Unresisting acceptance of something as inescapable; submission". Their dhimmi status was inescapable because the only alternative was death. They chose to live in submission instead of being killed outright. And the Christian dhimmis revolted in many lands toward the end of the Ottoman empire because the weakness of the Ottomans allowed them to do so with a decent chance of succeeding. The French Revolution did not invent the concept of freeing oneself from one's oppressors. - Merzbow 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, yes, it means "submission" but then so what? For example, when I want to enter United States, only because of being Persian, I have to go through a discriminative process; I have to submit myself to it. Does it mean to me that US is intolerant? No! However, if they later legislate a law that requires everybody (US natives, and others) to be treated similarly, people at that time will say, poor Aminz, how intolerant they were treating him! All I am saying is that if something appears natural and normal to me, even though I may not like it, does not necessarily make me discontent. I am enjoying my rights here and I am happy. Lewis says Jews were happy. Lewis himself goes on explaining the context of matters frequently. What’s the reason for censuring the historical context? --Aminz 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Because "historical context" is limitless. There is no reason to discuss China, India, Japan, Incas, or whatever to demonstrate that the treatment of dhimmis "was not that bad". Encyclopedia articles must stick to the topic in question and let the facts speak for themselves. Pecher ^Talk 09:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
His excellency: "You're being disengenuous, as always ...And yet these devout advocates of the anti-Muslim movement get disproportionate representation in these articles." - That doesn't hold, and WP:PAs certainly don't either. --tickle me 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Marriage section (again)~~
"...the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave, and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "People of the Book" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.(Friedmann (2003), pp. 161–162)"
Who the hell is this Friedmann character who compares a Muslim marriage to slavery? Can someone verify if this is actually in the book? His Excellency... 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I'm sure you live within 5 miles of a library. - Merzbow 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)~~
His excellency & Merzbow, here is Watt says in an interview:
Question. What about the attitude of Muhammad (peace be upon him) towards women?
It is true that Islam is still, in many ways, a man’s religion. But I think I’ve found evidence in some of the early sources that seems to show that Muhammad made things better for women. It appears that in some parts of Arabia, notably in Mecca, a matrilineal system was in the process of being replaced by a patrilineal one at the time of Muhammad. Growing prosperity caused by a shifting of trade routes was accompanied by a growth in individualism. Men were amassing considerable personal wealth and wanted to be sure that this would be inherited by their own actual sons, and not simply by an extended family of their sisters’ sons. This led to a deterioration in the rights of women. At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons. Muhammad improved things quite a lot. By instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, he gave women certain basic safeguards. Set in such historical context the Prophet can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights.
A lot also depends on what sort of Muslim society you look at. Many Westerners today think that Islam holds women in the heaviest oppression. That may be so in some cases, but only because they look at certain parts of the Islamic world. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey have all had women heads of state. I therefore don’t think the perception of Westerners is entirely correct.
--Aminz 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, we're just going in circles here. Can you propose a specific textual change? I already proposed that we add an 'although' clause to the Lewis sentence that makes it clear that he also says that dhimmis had rights theoretically granted to them by Islamic law. - Merzbow 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the introduction & some other parts needs to be re-written. Just adding a phrase or even a sentence will not make the article unbiased. I'll propose a specific textual change in a few days after reading more. --Aminz 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Then, stop littering the talk page with pages of irrelevant quotes and comments. A reader who has been out of this talk for a day will find oneself completely lost due the heaps of meaningless comments that have piled up. You needn't reply to this, just stop doing what you're doing now. Pecher ^Talk 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, stop. Your own comments are meaningness, not mine. I am replying back to someone else, you don't have to read. You have no right to call my comments meaningless. --Aminz 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~No direct accusations~~
H.E., I think it is not appropriate to choose the heading of your paragraph POV(Abuse of Sources -> "Alleged" abuse of "a source") As I said, every alleged misrepresentation of the source at best can be construed as original research and only at worst can be construed as dishonesty. Moreover, we only want the article to be changed. There are more things to be changed, I've noticed, not just first paragraph. For example, the context of the following lewis quote gives us a different impression than it does when taken and read taken out of its context:
"It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam began to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesman for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity"
I need to run now, and haven't read the previous talks here. I just noticed the heading you've chosen and thought it is not appropriate. Take care, --Aminz 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
~~See above regarding this incessant talk page littering. Pecher ^Talk 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~If I am doing talk page littering, you are also better stop defending yourself of the obvious misrepresention of the sources. --Aminz 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Stop defending myself from your misleading, dishonest, and baseless accusations? You ha ve failed to show a single instance where I have misrepresented a source. Pecher ^Talk 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Pecher, I am not happy with our progress. We never had any significant progress anywhere really. Not so sure, but if the situation wants to remain the same, we may want to report each other to the ArbCom. I believe I already have enough evidences from here and there. You should have some as well. But that's not the good way to go unless we feel it is necessary. --Aminz 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~The ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. Pecher ^Talk 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably what you want, Aminz. They deal with article disputes but, it's not binding or anything. gren グレン 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Poor structure and unbalanced~~
I would like to use an article on this subject to supplement my reading about Christian-Muslim-Jewish relationships in the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately, this article is more or less hopeless as history. Although there are a great many references they are nearly all drawn from just three authors. Not that these authors shouldn't be cited, but since they are from a similar viewpoint they should be balanced with other reliable sources. The article consistently fails to distinguish between what sharia law said should be the status of non-Muslims and what restrictions were actually applied in different places at different times.
Andrew Wheatcroft in Infidels: A History of the Conflict between Christendom and Islam, Viking Penguin 2003, says p76, talking about the breakdown of tolerance (convivencia) towards the end of the Reconquista:
"However, we should read the law codes and prohibitions less as a representation of what actually happened, and more as an effort to prevent the dangers of uncontrolled proximity. Islam never prohibited marriage between Muslim men and women of the other castes, while concubines or slaves were used sexually by men without regard to their faith. By law the children of Muslim men were supposed to follow the faith of their father. But the realities of human life, in the past as in the present, did not always correlate with the prescriptions of the law." Itsmejudith 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Concur w/ Judith. Absolutely! -- Szvest 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}~~
"The article consistently fails to distinguish between what sharia law said should be the status of non-Muslims and what restrictions were actually applied in different places at different times." Lewis also agrees with this. If I remember correctly, he somewhere states that what was practiced was worst than what sharia law itself said. --Aminz 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lewis agrees with the comments about this article? I'm afraid he would need a time machine back in 1984 to do so. Actually, the article consistently distinguishes between the legal requirements and their practical implementations. All you need to find this out is actually read the article rather than skim the headings. Pecher ^Talk 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, If I remember correctly, Lewis agrees that "what was practiced was worst than what sharia law itself said"; I meant Lewis agrees with the the difference between "what sharia law says" and "what was practiced at different times". --Aminz 08:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Page number? Pecher ^Talk 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure where I saw this (or I may have mistaken) but here is something similar. Lewis wants to argue that if we want to evaluate tolerance according to the practice of Muslims or their doctorines, we get different results. (at the Page 6). That is the practice is not identical to the doctorines, even to the extent that our answer to the question "How tolerant Islam" may change as to how we define Islam (based on practices or doctorines). --Aminz 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about whether Islam was tolerant or intolerant. The question of tolerance is inherently subjective, and it's not up to an encyclopedia article to answer it. This article is about the Islamic concept of dhimmi/dhimma and it's practical implementation. It's high time you relented and stopped bringing up the issue of tolerance and quoting all these general statements that you love to throw on the talk page. Start talking about specific provisions of sharia and their practical implementations. Pecher ^Talk 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As my comments above clearly show, Lewis says: "Page 7-8:
…, the term “tolerance” is still most commonly used to indicate acceptance by a dominant religion of the presence of others. Our present inquiry is limited to one question: How did Islam in power treat other religions? Or, to put it more precisely, how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects?
Isn't this an important question the article wants to answer??? That how were non-Muslims treated. It is not personal at all. --Aminz 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is one aspect that this article should cover, but can you find the word "tolerance in how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects? The answer to this question is what I call "practice" of the application of the Islamic law, the other side being the theory, i.e. sharia itself. None of this has anything to do with "tolerance". Pecher ^Talk 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to people for quick responses to my comments yesterday. OK, I’ll take an example of what I mean. Say I want to compare the possibility of Jews constructing and using synagogues in mediaeval Muslim Spain with mediaeval Christian Spain. Fair enough question to use the article for? It is one of the things that I am interested in. By a long chain of connection it relates to research I am trying to do on south east England. I go to the section Places of Worship.
First I find six sentences presented in a very factual way, with wikilinks to historical figures. All this is drawn from Bat Ye’or (ref. 41). The first sentence states very firmly what Islamic law says. It seems plausible, but what are Bat Ye’or’s sources? Here the article is dealing with the law and not how it was interpreted. Then BY moves on to a particular jurist. Someone has kindly put in a wiki link to him, but the article is little more than a stub from 1911 Britannica. The article on the jurist has a long bibliography, but the dhimmi article, following BY, does not give the reference to which of the books might be relevant. There is nothing to be learnt about the circumstances in which this jurist was writing. Was this a central part of his legal approach or just an aside? Was it stricter or less strict than what other jurists argued?
Then, still with the same reference to 2/3 pages in BY the article slides from what the law said to how it was enforced. Two sentences take us through three Abbasid caliphs and a Fatimid caliph, from 821 to 1021. All four have their own articles but there doesn’t seem to have been any attempt to cross-check between these. In the article on the first Abbasid there is mention of his intolerance of Jews and Christians – he also destroyed Shia shrines, apparently, which might be relevant. The second Abbasid’s article says nothing about attitudes to Christians and Jews. The third Abbasid is Harun Al-Rashid himself, and his article is detailed but has nothing on Jews and Christians. The Fatimid’s article sees his intolerance of other faiths as being “strange behaviour” linked to some kind of mental breakdown. Having gone through this 200-year sweep the paragraph ends with a general statement about dhimmis managing to build churches and mosques anyhow. This final statement makes it seem that more is known than actually is and gives the distinct impression that the position was the same throughout the Muslim world and across centuries. Also, the paragraph shifts between the question of whether non-Muslims were allowed to build places of worship and instances of when synagogues and churches were destroyed.
The second paragraph deals with whether churches and synagogues could be rebuilt. Here the main reference is the Pact of Umar. Yet this very article refers to a consensus view of academic historians about the dubious provenance of that document. The statement that bribery was used is repeated with no source.
What can I deduce from this section about the situation in Spain? I’d say nothing. It seems probable that an Abbasid destroyed synagogues and churches in the Middle East, and that a Fatimid did the same 200 years later in Egypt. I’ve found no information to extend statements elsewhere in wikipedia about the Almoravids and Almohads being less tolerant than the previous rulers of Al-Andalus. That’s OK for me. I’m a professional researcher - way, way out of my field, but with a general skill in using sources critically. There is no way that we can assume that all wikipedia users have those skills. It took me over an hour to pick this section apart. Very few users can afford that time. So it’s no good to say “read the article”. It’s meant to be an encyclopaedia article. It’s meant to give the reader a quick overview that should, nevertheless, be accurate as far as possible. This article does not meet criteria for use of sources in historical articles and should be completely rewritten. I appreciate that a lot of work is already going into this, but there is still a considerable way to go.
And sorry for the length of this statement, but I needed this number of words to spell the point out. Itsmejudith 10:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll split the answer into points:
Say I want to compare the possibility of Jews constructing and using synagogues in mediaeval Muslim Spain with mediaeval Christian Spain. Fair enough question to use the article for? No, you should hit the archives and do the documentary work there. Wikipedia is not meant to answer such extremely specific questions; it's an encyclopedia, after all. At the very least, you're at the wrong article, as this one deals with the general issues of the status of dhimmis; it does not and will not cover the treatment of Jews in Christendom.

The article on the jurist has a long bibliography, but the dhimmi article, following BY, does not give the reference to which of the books might be relevant. There is nothing to be learnt about the circumstances in which this jurist was writing. Was this a central part of his legal approach or just an aside? Was it stricter or less strict than what other jurists argued? Bat Ye'or illustrates with al-Nawawi what she calls a "unanimous opinion". Looks like you have problems with the article on Nawawi rather than with this one.

In the article on the first Abbasid there is mention of his intolerance of Jews and Christians – he also destroyed Shia shrines, apparently, which might be relevant. The second Abbasid’s article says nothing about attitudes to Christians and Jews. The third Abbasid is Harun Al-Rashid himself, and his article is detailed but has nothing on Jews and Christians. The Fatimid’s article sees his intolerance of other faiths as being “strange behaviour” linked to some kind of mental breakdown. Again, you're having problems with the other articles, not with this one.

Having gone through this 200-year sweep the paragraph ends with a general statement about dhimmis managing to build churches and mosques anyhow. This final statement makes it seem that more is known than actually is and gives the distinct impression that the position was the same throughout the Muslim world and across centuries. I encourage you to read WP:NOR. Your opinions are interesting, but here we only cite sources, not personal opinions of wikipedians.

The second paragraph deals with whether churches and synagogues could be rebuilt. Here the main reference is the Pact of Umar. Yet this very article refers to a consensus view of academic historians about the dubious provenance of that document. Nevertheless, Islamic scholars used it as a key source for their rulings (isn't it in the article already?). This is why the Pact of Umar is so important.

What can I deduce from this section about the situation in Spain? I’d say nothing. The question is: why should you be able to? This is a general article from which you want to deduce some very specific information. There is an article on Al-Andalus; maybe you'll be lucky there. On the whole, however, you're at a wrong place. Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for doing original research; you will need to read dozens of books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of documents to do research on historical issues. Attempts to find an answer on Wikipedia indicate that you're most likely not serious about what you're doing.
~~Pecher ^Talk 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
With the greatest respect, Pecher, you don't know at all how serious I am about my research. Please don't tell me that I need to read the article more thoroughly or that I need to go through archives. I have a right, as do all readers, to use Wikipedia in weird, wonderful, and creative ways. I don't have a right to expect that it will give me sufficient details to answer all my questions. I do have a right to expect that what I find in the encyclopedia is factual and unbiased. My example was meant to show you that what I find in this article is selective and poorly structured. That is still my view. I couldn't convince you in this post but I will carry on trying to help towards consensus. BTW it was the al-Andalus page that directed me to this one, so yes, I did read it. Itsmejudith 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Of course, you have a right to use Wikipedia for your weird purposes, but you have no right to demand that Wikipedia cater to them. Pecher ^Talk 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Thank you for your speedy response, Pecher. However, if you read again what I said, the only thing I am demanding is a an encyclopedia article. I must leave it there rather than take the argument round in circles. There are substantive points of disagreement that I shall post on under the appropriate headings. You are a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, but please forgive me if I remind you to indent your contributions so that others can follow the discussion (or not, as they choose). Itsmejudith 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As an experienced Wikipedian, I'm pointing out that it is sufficient that comments from different contributors have different identation. Otherwise, threads tend to drift too much to the right, leaving too little space for the actual comment. Pecher ^Talk 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Fair enough.Itsmejudith 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya~~
H.E., where do these two rulings come from? The only reference you give is to something called "al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya". Can we have a publisher, date, and ISBN number of the English translation you used for this? And what is the "Sahih Abu Dawud"? There is a hadith collection "Sunan Abi Da'ud", but I searched the MSA collection for that saying and it's not there. Anyways, we can't quote hadith without commentary because it's not a reliable source, so please cite commentary for it or it will be removed. - Merzbow 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There isn't much information aside from the book's name. I'll take it off from now. Sahih Abu Dawud is the same as Sunan Abi Dawud, but I checked my own collection of it and there seems to be a descreptancy between the essay I had and the actual volume. I'll re-add the section when I have better sources. There aren't alot of Muslim sources on the internet, and most Muslim run websites are poor. His Excellency... 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~This appears to be a false citation from the Sunan Abu Dawud (the proper name: "Sahih" Abu Dawud is a mistake). Eagleswings 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
JE finds "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" in "Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133 --Aminz 04:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not from one of the six canonical hadith collections. Is this meant to be a hadith? Where does it come from?Eagleswings 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know (I am shia) but according to Jewish Encyclopedia it is considered authentic by Muslims (see the below excerpt) --Aminz 04:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
H.E. I haven't looked closely in the section you want to add, but this may be useful for you. It is quoted from Jewish Encyclopedia:
"The different tendencies in the codifications are shown in divergences in the decrees attributed to the prophet. While one reads, "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" ("Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133), people with fanatical views haveput into the mouth of the prophet such words as these: "Whoever shows a friendly face to a dhimmi is like one who deals me a blow in the side" (Ibn Ḥajar al-Haitami, "Fatawi Ḥadithiyyah," p. 118, Cairo, 1307). Or: "The angel Gabriel met the prophet on one occasion, whereupon the latter wished to take his hand. Gabriel, however, drew back, saying: 'Thou hast but just now touched the hand of a Jew.' The prophet was required to make his ablutions before he was allowed to take the angel's hand" (Dhahabi, "Mizan al-I'tidal," ii. 232, 275). These and similar sayings, however, were repudiated by the Mohammedan ḥadithcritics themselves as false and spurious. They betray the fanatical spirit of the circle in which they originated. Official Islam has even tried to turn away from Jews and Christians the point of whatever malicious maxims have been handed down from ancient times. An old saying in regard to infidels reads: "If ye meet them in the way, speak not to them and crowd them to the wall." When Suhail, who relates this saying of the prophet, was asked whether Jews and Christians were intended, he answered that this command referred to the heathen ("mushrikin"; "Musnad Aḥmad," ii. 262)."
--Aminz 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~This is the third reminder to the same editor not to clutter the talk page. Pecher ^Talk 08:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Please be more specific. --Aminz 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
In case you didn't understand: this lengthy quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia has nothing to do on the talk page. If you want to inform H.E. about some material that you find useful, post it on his talk page. Pecher ^Talk 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, there's no policy that says so. The quote isn't long enough to create such a havoc. It is indeed encyclopaedic enough to merit a few lines here instead of Aminz spamming users' talk pages. -- Szvest 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}
~~No, "spamming" means posting the same message across multiple user talk pages; posting one message on one user talk page cannot possibly be spamming. Pecher ^Talk 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Bat Ye'or & Andrew Bostom, reliable sources (?)~~
I just looked at the proportion of quotes in this article that comes from Bat Ye'or's. Bat Ye'or is NOT a historian, her academic training is not in Islam or in history. This article is utterly hopeless. What are the rules regarding the proportion of an article that should reflect a single POV? Can we just rename the article to "Dhimmi as seen by Islamophobes? His Excellency... 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I am trying to find the quote from Lewis in which he didn't approved scholarship of Bat Ye'or. I *think* I have seen it somewhere but I maybe wrong. --Aminz 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
This one is interesting: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005178.html
Let me try to find more. --Aminz 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And this one is even more interesting:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/01/009895print.html
It says:
"Lewis has never yet acknowledged his behind-the-scenes belittling of Bat Ye'or and his own refusal to recognize that the history of dhimmitude -- a word he likes to mock as "dhimmi-tude," as if it is a preposterous, rather than useful, addition to the lexicon -- matters, is relevant, is center-stage. Instead we are supposed to believe the word itself is illegitimate. No one, apparently, can add to the wordhoard's store, even when the word turns out to be most apt and most useful. He has never engaged sympathetically with what is presented in The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam. He has never reviewed the book, never written about it. Instead he just goes around, ignoring or denigrating in various sly ways (that "dhimmi-tude") the work of Bat Ye'or."
--Aminz 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't know if these sites are reliable or not, but here is another one:
Lewis has in the past been unwilling to endorse the scholarship of Bat Ye'or, describing it as "too polemical."
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1197
--Aminz 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The polemical thing is mentioned by another scholar as well (taken from her article in wikipedia):
Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies writes of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work." --Aminz 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We can all wish there existed better sources than there do, but so few people are actually looking at this subject in a critical manner. The mere act of critically examining such issues as the history of jihad, dhimmitude, the compilation of the Qur'an, etc. is essentially out of bounds for professors in any US university because of the politically correct environment out there. There is pretty much zero real scholarship in Islamic studies being done, as compared to studies of the history of Christianity, for example. I would love to see books on those subjects from guys like Esposito who are sympathetic to Islam and who might serve as a counterweight to what Yeor and Bostom are doing, but they refuse to do so; instead, they coast along putting out vapid popular history books. I also recall reading how the Saudis have poured tens of millions into funding professorships at major universities; this certainly doesn't help matters. - Merzbow 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Merzbow, the crux of the matter is that the subject of dhimmis is woefully underresearched compared to other historical subjects. We have Tritton and Fattal on the early history, Bernard Lewis (mostly on the Ottoman Empire), Goitein, Stillman, and Cohen (mostly on the Jewish history), and, of course, Bat Ye'or who writes about nothing but dhimmis. Good history of Christians under the Muslim rule, anyone? For the record: Saudis have poured 20 million dollars into the center of Islamic studies at the Georgetown University headed by Esposito himself. Talk about neutrality! Pecher ^Talk 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Now, Pecher explain why that Saudi quote, not sure if true, was relevant to the discussion here. --Aminz 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
If Jews can spend tens of millions of dollars defaming Islam and working to isolate Muslims in America through this mockery of scholarship, why cant Saudis (or other Muslims) do the same? The biggest lobby organization in Washington works to make Congress and the White House put Israel before the interests of the US. I think Muslims need to wake up to the effectiveness of the media. I see no more than 3 Muslims editing Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. Mostly the show's being run by people like Pecher and Timothy Usher who are basically forwarding the orientalist propaganda drivel spewed by the Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'ors. I've officially had it with this article. Aminz, you do some great work, but focus on the article, not the talk page. His Excellency... 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
H.E. I really don't know anything about how things are going on. And I am not sure if these discussion would help improving the article. One thing I have realized: Bernard Lewis is not a critic of Islam. He is an scholar. His books are nice to read. I don't know about Daniel Pipes or Bat Ye'or. I can say however that Ali Sina is not a reliable source. Unfortunately, the Bat Ye'or article doesn't explain well the academic studies of Bat Ye'or. I would like to see where she has got her degree and on what. I need a justification of why we can quote Bat Ye'or here. What makes her better than Karen Armstrong? Lewis seems to dismiss Bat Ye'or. Why is she a reliable source? --Aminz 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing will help improve these articles. Actually as scholars go, I respect Bernard Lewis above most. He's still far from perfect, but nobody is perfect anyway. Most of Edward Said's criticisms of Lewis are correct though, in my opnion. Critical analysis of history is something foreign to the Arabs, so nothing from them is much good. Bat Ye'or is a witch from some family that was ousted from Egypt. She carries her baggage proudly in everything she does. From what I know, she carries a degree in 'social studies' along with that baggage. She's not much of a scholar though. Not that scholarship counts for much- Daniel Pipes has a doctorate in history and yet his rhetoric is inferior to most of the editors here. His loose tongue's got him caught as a bigot too often to be considered funny anymore. Anyway, I'm done with this and other articles like it. And who said you can't quote Karen Armstrong? His Excellency... 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz does good work partly because he's great at finding sources. I try to be the same way. 90% of being a good Wikipedia editor is the willingness to do the drudge work involved in digging up sources. I will back you up 110% adding reliably sourced information that comes at this subject from another perspective. Unfortunately, as I've noted, those professors most sympathetic to Islam like Esposito and Said seem to be the ones least willing to perform actual scholarship. As a Wikipedian, I can only lament this as it reduces the sphere of information we have to draw upon in order to construct balanced articles on the subject. - Merzbow 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, yeah, the lack of scholars sympathetic to Islam who work on Dhimmi is unfortunate. --Aminz 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
H.E. it is not proper to call somebody "witch"! You can criticize her, that's easy; but she must NOT be offended. Pecher said Karen Armstrong is a writer and not a scholar (and an unreliable source). Pecher believes Karen Armstrong doesn't hold any academic degree related to what she writes. I am wondering by the same standards, Bat Ye'or should be considered as unreliable. Let's wait for Pecher's argument. --Aminz 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~If H.E. wants to quote Armstrong and can find a relevant passage on dhimma, then I'll back him up, seeing as how Bostom is a medical doctor and he's quoted. - Merzbow 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I don't concur. Karen Armstrong was once censured by Pecher et al. People not more qualified than her must be censured as well. --Aminz 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Karen Armstrong was not "censured" (which means "condemned" in English), but disqualified from reliable sources because she is not a scholar, but a popular writer, covering any subject that yields money: from the history of the myth to Jerusalem to Buddhism. Bat Ye'or, on the other hand, has been approved as a scholar who has been publishing her works through university presses for several decades and who has devoted her scholarship exclusively to the issue of the history of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. In case you didn't notice, Aminz, Bernard Lewis mentions one of her earlier works The Dhimmi... in note 1 to chapter 1 (don't remember the page number) along side the works of such great scholars as Tritton, Goitein, Fattal, Stillman, Cohen, and others. If she had been just nobody in 1984, Lewis wouldn't even notice her. Of course, Lewis says that Bat Ye'or emphasizes "negative aspects", but that's a matter of emphasis, not of factual accuracy; in other words, if she had misrepresented something, Lewis would have noticed it, but he didn't. Consequently, there is no reason to claim she is not a reliable source. Pecher ^Talk 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No! Bernard Lewis mentions the work of great scholars such as Tritton, Goitein, Fattal, Stillman, Cohen, and others. Then in the last two sentences, He puts her along with Karl Binswanger who is very critical of what he calls the "dogmatic Islamophilia" of many orientalists! Here is the exact quote:
" Two other works, which emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record, are Bat Ye'or, "name of a book", and Karl Binswanger, "name of a book". The latter is very critical of what he calls the "dogmatic Islamophilia" of many orientalists. "
This footnote is on this sentence: "Two stereotypes dominate most of what has been written on tolerance and intolerance in the Islamic world".

Sidney H. Griffith stated that there is an unfortunate polemical tone in her work. Lewis seems hasn't approve her scholarship calling her "too polemical". Show me a place that Bernard Lewis approves her or quotes something from her. Lewis quotes Stillman and others. Where does he quote Bat Ye'or? --Aminz 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No what? Lewis does not need to approve of her, but he ackonowledges her significance. Which time did you bring up this very same Griffith's quote on this talk page? Perhaps, for the third one, but, frankly, I've lost count. See here and here for better collections of reviews of her works. Pecher ^Talk 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
One thing I am sure is that her quotes should be attributed to herself (and not stated as facts) because she is controversial. I need to do more research about her. I am trying to see if any renowned scholar has found her reliable enough to quote her books. She may have done some great job. If her works are truly better than those of the renowned scholars (as some reviews suggest) and if her books are "all" factually correct, then there should be no reason for the renowned scholars to avoid quoting her. --Aminz 10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Pecher states that BY has been publishing "through university presses". This is not quite accurate - at least if the bibliography in the article can be relied on You will see that she has published four books with one publisher based in a minor university, and one book with another (Geneva) publisher. This adds a little to her status, but not much. When comparing her with Karen Armstrong, it should be remembered that BY is a polemicist, whereas KA is a popularizer. Neither are first-class sources and need to be used with caution, but a different kind of caution in each case. Itsmejudith 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Every source msut be used with caution, i.e. minding NPOV. Bat Ye'or, however, if not a "polemicist", but a scholar, even if not related to the academe; there is much more needed to justify the claim of her being a polemicist than some chastisement for a polemical tone. Anyway, as far as I understand, positive reviews of her works by academic scholars make little impression here because they don't fit a predetermined picture. Karen Armstrong, on the other hand, being a "popularizer" as Itsmejudith described her, need not be used at all, since she does no independent research. Everything that can be found in her books and can be found in scholarly sources as well must be taken from those scholarly sources directly; on the other hand, if something can be found in her books, but cannot be found in scholarly sources, then she just made it up. Pecher ^Talk 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bat Ye'or is reliable but has a strong POV this should be noted when using her, but she is factual. Note also that every Muslim that is quoted has the POV that Islam is a very good thing and in such view is as biased for it as Bat Ye'or is against it.I don't keep bringing it up as thats allways going to naturally the case as it's there religion. Pleases lets not start an edit war because of high standards that sources can't reasonably reach.Hypnosadist 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~BAT YE'OR and WP:RS~~
~~I won't bother asking people to read WP:RS, I'll quote the damned thing here so it can't be avoided:~~
A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)
Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we can feel free to assert them.
An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
Now, given the criticisms that Aminz has produced (and I can produce more), the statements derived from Bat Ye'or cannot be regarded as fact, but opinion. As such, "According to Bat Ye'or" or "Bat Ye'or" says" followed by whatever information that uses her books as citations is acceptable. To simply state something as a fact in the article and then finish it with the citation isn't acceptable, given her credibility as a scholar is questionable at best.They must be represented as such. Aminz, by the same token any statement by Karen Armstrong can also be included. You were mistaken in taking Pecher's words at face value. Please don't be naive. There are editors here who want to saturate articles with anti-Islamic views and exclude all views that could remotely be seen as sympathetic to the image of Muslims. I'm going to edit the article to make it clear that opinions are framed as opinions and not fact. Though I generally respect Bernard Lewis' work, the criticism he's recieved as being an 'orientalist' makes the same approach appropriate for him. His Excellency... 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) His Excellency... 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
NOPE. We need to be convinced that Bat Ye'or is a reliable source. She doesn't seem to have rigid academic studies and Lewis doesn't seem to approve her scholarship. Why should Wikipedia accept it given that Karen Armstrong is already rejected as a reliable source? No, Either Bat Ye'or can be quoted or not. If yes, THEN her quotes maybe her opinions. I am now thinking of removing her quotes unless one can prove me otherwise. --Aminz 06:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I'd compromise and limit quotes derived from her books to a criticism section. I'd warn you about taking anything Pecher says at face value. I'm not sure there's a requirement that content here be based on sources that are impressive academically- only that they be published. His Excellency... 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Let's wait for Pecher. He may prove to us that Bat Ye'or is a reliable source, who knows. --Aminz 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
You guys are not seeing the big picture. WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy precisely because where the line should be drawn is relative to a particular article. Should we only quote published professors on an article about a Pokeman character? Nope, or else there wouldn't be an article. Given that an article should exist in the first place, the goal is to restrict ourselves as far as possible to allow an encyclopedic presentation of the subject, but not so far that we have no material to work with. If we exclude Ye'or, Bostom, etc., we essentially have no article, because there are basically no professors publishing in this arena. This isn't going to be allowed to happen, folks. So it looks like the rule of thumb here is that somebody can be quoted if they have published a number of books on Islamic history, and have been recognized by multiple independent sources, but it's not necessary for them to have a relevant degree or job in the field. - Merzbow 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"So it looks like the rule of thumb.."?! You can't stand by WP:RS, so you're inventing rules for the rest of us to follow? At the very LEAST, the criticisms of Bat Ye'or invalidate the contents of her book from being considered fact. There is no Muslim scholar who would agree with her. At talks in universities, students have walked out on her polemic diatribes. Even pro-Israel Jewish groups have condemned her rhetoric. [6] Her views can only be considered opinion (polemic ones at that) and rendered as such.That she has been criticized and that her credibility as a reliable source should also be documented somewhere in the text, given so much of the article is founded on her polemics. His Excellency... 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, We have bernard lewis and a few others. Why aren't they enough? unfortunately, i haven't got to read much of lewis's works, but they seem very rich. I don't agree with you that "If we exclude Ye'or, Bostom, etc., we essentially have no article, because there are basically no professors publishing in this arena." --Aminz 07:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~For example, what you just removed Merzbow can be easily supported by lewis's work. --Aminz 07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Lewis is an exception, but who else? We can't write the entire article based on Lewis. Merzbow 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Norman Stillman is another example. It would be also good to find a book written by an early renowned Muslim on Dhimmi. We don't have to only use the orientalist views. --Aminz 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~"Early renowned Muslim" would only qualify as a primary source, not as a secondary source acceptable per WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
And for the record H.E., some random article by some unknown guy on a website called 'opendemocracy.net' falls way outside of any possible definition of a 'reliable source' for the dhimmi article by anyone's standards. You didn't actually think you were going to sneak that through, did you? :) - Merzbow 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, that's remarkable hypocricy considering what you've said two posts before this one. Look through the Islam-related articles here and see how often websites like Faithfreedom.org and Dhimmiwatch.com are used. All of a sudden a website isn't up to RS snuff? All of a sudden W:RS, which you dismissed as 'guideline, not policy' before is now written in stone? And where's the rule that says a publication must be in paper form? Do you have an ad hoc rulebook regarding sources that you're applying now? Or is POV-bias determining the criteria by which you hold sources to higher standards or lower ones? If Bat Ye'or polemics can be taken as fact, this is perfectly acceptable as well. His Excellency... 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually checked the author of that quote and found some bio for her. She seemed to have relevant academic degree; I wasn't able to make any decision about her, so I left it for others to check it. --Aminz 07:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's still a web article on a random website, not even a published newspaper, and certainly not from a book. - Merzbow 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's random because you don't know of it? There is no WP rule that forbids content that isn't from a published-on-paper source. His Excellency... 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Yup, that also needs to be checked (to make sure that the article is indeed written by the author). --Aminz 07:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
For the record: contrary to H.E.'s misleading claims above the article never quotes from Andrew Bostom or Daniel Pipes. Pecher ^Talk 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to your misleading claims, I've never said "Andrew Bostom" in my life. I don't even know who he is. His Excellency... 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the title of the preceding section never mentions his name. Pecher ^Talk 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Excerpts from the right-wing "Campus Watch":
But many of the 70 students attending her Oct. 15 lecture at Georgetown University on "The Ideology of Jihad, Dhimmitude and Human Rights" walked out. Julia Segall, president of the Georgetown Israel Alliance, and Daniel Spector, president of the Jewish Student Alliance, called the lecture a "disaster" in Friday's edition of Hoya, a student newspaper.Bat Ye'or and Mr. Littman "made no effort to make a clear distinction between pure, harmonious Islam and the acts of a few who falsely claim to act in the name of Islam," they wrote. ...Mr. Littman shrugged off the fracas."The Muslim students who were attending were unhappy with what we were saying and so they pressured the Jews," he said. "And the Jews collapsed. They've become dhimmis." Bat Ye'or also was criticized by John Esposito, director of Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, for lacking academic credentials. She studied at the University of London's School of Archaeology and at the University of Geneva, but never graduated. Imam Rashied Omar, a Capetown (South Africa) University academic pursuing his doctorate in religion and violence at the University of Notre Dame, said that Bat Ye'or's findings are a minority view that contrasts with a large portion of extant literature on medieval Jewish-Muslim-Christian relations.Abdelaziz Sachedina, a religious studies professor at the University of Virginia, points out that Bat Ye'or used highly polemic sources written by the victims of dhimmitude. [7]
Aminz listed more criticisms above. Can the assertions from this person be introduced in a Wikipedia article as fact? The use of her work to convey even opinion should be limited, given the amount of criticism that exists regarding her work. His Excellency... 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Georgetown University is financed with Saudi money, as its name indicates. Pecher ^Talk 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Much of what was deleted was not her opinions but her quoting other people often from translations she had done. This was not an edit it was a hatchet job anthing that had Bat ye'or's name near it. Could we Talk about specific quotes please.Hypnosadist 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Lack of online sources~~
It strikes me as a bit odd that this article has so few online references. This is an internet connected encyclopedia is it not? As well while there are numerous cites they primarily appear to be only from 3 authors, Bat Ye'or, Lewis and Stillman (all in the form of book citations). On a topic as controversial as this one this strikes me as a bit odd. Are there so few online references that this article is obliged to almost solely rely upon book cites? Netscott 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Obvious misrepresentation of sources by Pecher~~
~~I have got Lewis(1984). It is now obvious to me that Pecher has misrepresented the sources in the following ways:~~
~~He has selectively picked some sentences hiding other neighbor sentences that make the paragraph or section neutral or complete the meaning of that very sentence.~~
His selective manner of picking quotes has sometimes changed the meaning of quotes in some cases, that is, if one reads that quote in its context will get a different impression than when they are read here.
~~I have gathered several evidences. I am requesting for this article to be wholely revised by an honest person who reports everything. --Aminz 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~What is the title of Lewis' book exactly? Netscott 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
"The Jews of Islam" Bernard Lewis 1984. I can provide a couple of examples for you. --Aminz 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the place. Please if you do, try to make it a comparision showing the neutral view and the non-neutral view as it reads now in the article. Thanks. Netscott 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Alleged_misrepresentation_of_a_source --Aminz 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Why only Jizya verse appeared here while other verses Lewis discusses are not?~~
~~I have more evidences (I need to quote from the book). Will be back --Aminz 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Removal of sourced material~~
Merzbow, consensus on what? the verse Pecher quoted (in Jizya section) comes along with the verses I quoted in the Lewis's book. For some reasons, only that verse was quoted here. I added the verses that for some reasons didn't appear here. Merzbow, why is your justification for removal of sourced material? --Aminz 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You must provide evidence that these verses were used by Muslim jurists in formulating dhimmi laws. Otherwise, the verses don't belong to the "sources" section. Don't tell me "Lewis writes about them"; please provide unambiguous proof that these verses were used to justify one piece of legislation or another. Pecher ^Talk 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Huh! It is interesting. See page 13-14 of Lewis (1984). You quoted the Jizya verse from the very page 14. It is becoming more interesting. --Aminz 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~My prediction about your answer has come true. Pecher ^Talk 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Lewis for example regarding verse 2:62 says: "nevertheless served to justify the tolerated position accorded to the followers of these religions under Muslim rule". What is wrong with my edits? --Aminz 22:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~What piece of legislation did it influence? Pecher ^Talk 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
"acceptance of religous pluralism, even of coexistence". Lewis says: "... it does not affect the way in which the verse was normally and regularly interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions". --Aminz 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, it is Aminz who is engaging in selective quotation now by combining two unrelated quotes to produce something entirely unintelligible. Anyway, it's a pointless discussion when the other side does not even try to answer your questions. Pecher ^Talk 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
An unbelievable accusation! For those who don't have the book, here is the full text: (my excerpts are italic)
...There are verses in the Qur'an that have been interpreted by later commentators and exegetes as an acceptance of religious pluralism, and even coexistence. Though the precise meaning of some of these passages in the original text has been recently challenged, there can be no doubt about the consensus of Muslim opinion. Thus, for example, the verse (^{[Quran 2:256]}) "there is no compulsion in religion," has usually been taken to mean that other religions should be tolerated, and that their followers should not be forced to adapt Islam. Recently a European scholar has argued that this phrase is not a commendation of tolerance but rather an expression of resignation-an almost reluctant acceptance of the obduracy of others. One may argue for or against this interpretation of the original meaning of the Qur'anic words, but even if we accept this version, it does not affect the way in which the verse was normally and regularly interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions.
--Aminz 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
More than believable, as it turns out, since you have provided the entire quote only when your selective quotation has been exposed. Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Pecher ^Talk 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean. I was writing to you and we both have the book. I only needed to point you to the phrases. Your accusation was that I am "engaging in selective quotation now by combining two unrelated quotes to produce something entirely unintelligible". Let the readers judge whether your accusation is true or not.

I also answered your question. I believe that page 13-14 is clear of what it is talking about. Nevertheless, I quoted for you "it does not affect the way in which the verse was normally and regularly interpreted in the Islamic legal and theological traditions"--Aminz 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"You guys are not seeing the big picture. WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy..." Merzbow 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) You dismissed WP:RS easily enough because it was 'a guideline and not policy'. WP:Consensus is a guideline as well, and since absolutely nothing else in this article got into it through consensus, it would be a hypocritical act to finally demand consensus now. You can't be so selective as to which guidelines hold merit and which don't. His Excellency... 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the lewis quote is exactly as Aminz represented it, it shows "there is no compulsion in religion," was used as an argument for the existence of dhimmis (as aposed to thier death, forced conversion, or exile). Both the quote and the string of theologic logic appear self evident to me.Hypnosadist 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The thrust of the Lewis material on p. 11 13 is that he is pointing out other Qur'anic verses (aside from 9:29) that contribute to the status of religious minorities under Muslim rule. Pecher points out that Lewis does not tie this to dhimma directly, but I think the inference is clear. We should add a short summary of this material, roughly like so:

In addition, Lewis thinks that verse ^{[Quran 2:256]}, "...there is no compulsion in religion...", has usually been held in Islamic legal and theological circles to mean that the followers of other religions should not be forced to adopt Islam. He also holds that verse ^{[Quran 2:61]} has served to justify the tolerated position accorded to the followers of Christianity, Judaism, and Sabianism under Muslim rule.

~~We can insert this after the material about verse 9:29. Fair enough? - Merzbow 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Sorry, I couldn't find 9:29 on page 11. Merzbow, I was really fair in presenting material. To best of my knowledge, Lewis starts talking about these verses on page 12. He starts with verses which defines Islam against other religions. (e.g. Islam separates from Christianity by rejecting the trinity, incarnation and from Judaism by passages abandoning some of the Jewish dietary laws). So far he has defined the Muslim community and how it is formed. Then he talks about how Muslim community treats other communities (the verses I quoted are from there); The Jizya verse comes as the last verse discussed by Lewis here(but not in a new paragraph). The order in which Lewis is mentioning these verses is exactly the order I wrote them in my post. I was honest. Now, why is it "fair enough" to just mention 2 of those verses and put them after Jizya verse? --Aminz 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I miswrote, I mean to say p13, not p11, corrected. - Merzbow 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
It's fair enough because the material on p13 does not deserve any more space than I'm giving it in the paragraph above since Lewis does not tie it directly to dhimma. Those are the two verses that he exposits upon using language that most justifies the view that he meant them to apply to the situation of minorities under Muslim rule. - Merzbow 00:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether it deserves more space or not is arguable but the reasoning that "Lewis does not tie it directly to dhimma". Merzbow, do you have Lewis 1984 handy? I prefer to point you to passages rather than writing them here. --Aminz 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
A clarification: When I suggested to put the proposed paragraph after the 'material about verse 9:29' I meant in the 'Sources of dhimma' section, I wasn't referring to material in Lewis' book. - Merzbow
~~It seems that you already have the book; I prefer to discuss this with you when we are on the same page. --Aminz 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Well, I don't have it technically, but I can search it at Amazon, which is just as good. (Just search for a common word and you can basically read every page). Go ahead. - Merzbow 05:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

~~GREAT! I didn't know about that! I was only able to read the first 6 pages. Can you read more? This is more important than this article!! Can you read more? --Aminz 06:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
As long as I search on a common word I can pick any page I want. Actually something to watch out for is the page numbering in the 1987 edition listed by Amazon is very different from the numbering for the 1984 book; I think this is tripping us up above. We may want to consider converting all the page numbers for this book to the Amazon numbering for easy reference. Pecher? - Merzbow 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I didn't notice any disagreements about page numbering. What are they? Pecher ^Talk 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~
That's great. Thanks. Merzbow, coming back to your argument: "since Lewis does not tie it directly to dhimma" Dhimma is just another name for Non-Muslims living in Muslim land, it is not a new concept. Lewis first uses this term when he wants to quote Muslim commentators to best of my knowledge. Verse 9:29 doesn't have the word Dhimmi in it. My reasoning is that Lewis mentions 5 verses I think and 9:29 is the last one. The four verses regulate the tolerance of Muslims towards Dhimmis and the fifth one regulates another law for them afterwards, that is, 9:29 assumes that Dhimmis must be tolerated, but then goes further and explains they should pay tribute. Puting verses in reverse is awkward (its like saying the law for "Those X's with other religions should pay tribute" comes after the law for "Those X's who have other religion are free to keep their religion") The first one comes naturally after the second one, I think. --Aminz 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
~~No, dhimma is not "just another name for Non-Muslims living in Muslim land"; non-Muslims living in the land of Islam need not be dhimmis. Pecher ^Talk 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Right, ~~maybe tolerated~~ Non-Muslims ~~living~~ subjects of the Muslim ~~land~~ state. I'll have a closer look at Lewis 12-14, but still think Lewis is talking about the same thing when he is discussing the five verses. --Aminz 06:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Merzbow, please give me a strong argument for putting 9:29 before the other verses, if you still think it should go first. I have argued above --Aminz 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~So i'll be the first to talk about the AFD~~
So a speedy keep is about as strong as it gets, anyone want to say anything on that. Hypnosadist 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, the AFD was locked before most people could be aware of its existence. Of the people who voted, apparently a full zero of them actually looked at the article or responded bearing WP policy in mind. Those who would have bothered to look deeper would have taken time to review the situation. Nobody knew that 1 hour and 10 minutes is all they'd get. His Excellency... 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not know it would be so quick either! Never seen one before, just was at the PC when it happened.Hypnosadist 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~This article has absolutely no regard for 'Neutral Point of View~~
(since the AFD was killed almost immediately, these concerns should be voiced here)
Blatant NPOV violations. Article is almost entirely produced using views of controversial authors such as Bat Ye'or. WP:NPOV policy on not giving undue weight to a certain perspective goes totally ignored in this article. Much of the article lists 'facts' that are supported by the writings of Bat Ye'or, a highly controversial writer who has been critisized often for being more of a polemic than a scholar (see talk page on Dhimmi). There is very little, if any, trust between editors, with all sides pushing their own view on the subject.
From WP:AFD : All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace.
The reason for which this article is a prime candidate for deletion from WP main namespace is primarily the first one, NPOV. WP:NPOV lists various rules in regards to keeping articles fair and objective. WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation makes the distinction between a 'fact' and an opinion. A statement can be termed a fact if no serious dispute exists as to its truth. The entirety of this article presumes the views of highly controversial writers as being facts. An account from Stillman's or Bat Ye'or's book regarding a historic occurance that could be percieved as oppressive (say, restrictions on clothing or inability to bear weaponry), that has been seen to have occured at any point in history, is reproduced as fact and as a generic trait of the Dhimmi system, followed by the citation link.
WP:NPOV#Undue_weight speaks to the need to give a balanced account of all significant sides on the topic. This article is entirely based on the perspective of several orientalists, all of whom represent the same line of rhetoric. An overwhelmingly large proportion of the article is founded on Bat Ye'or's works. Bat Ye'or's credibility as a scholar has been critisized by other, more reknowned, scholarship (Bernard Lewis, for example). She has been critisized for her polemic tone and selective gathering of sources for her work. She has also been critisized for her lack of academic training in the subject she speaks and writes so frequently about. She is an activist, and many have called her an Islamophobe.His Excellency... 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
~~It was obviously an AfD done in bad faith, as observers/admins made clear in the AfD discussion. Please contribute productively and WP:AGF. - Merzbow 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~
LOL. You've contadicted your first sentence with you second one. You allege bad faith and immidiately after tell me to assume good faith. WP:AGF requires that you not make allegations of bad faith unless you can credibly point to evidence to support your allegation. Now where's your evidence? I could present considerable evidence from this page alone to support the claim that you're work has not been produced in good faith. His Excellency... 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Reread please. "As observers/admins made clear in the AfD discussion." To wit, CrazyRussian's observation that "Your citation from WP:AFD is contrived and inapplicable. This nomination is very misguided at best, and to continue this discussion would be counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals". I repeat, "very misguided at best". - Merzbow
Yes, and to justify his point he sarcarstically suggested I file an AFD on "Judaism" because it has a pro-Jewish slant. What he was implying was that a POV-bias was to be expected here. His logic is flawed to say the least. If you automatically suscribe to his review without doing the work of thinking yourself, oh well... His Excellency... 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"...many have called her an Islamophobe": So they do with Bernard Lewis, whoever they are, since he advised conservative politicians, like the ~~Turkish~~, uh, the American government. That's a rhetorical, not an academic assessment. Please mention academic sources debunking her scholarship beyond encyclopedic notability. Besides, please source Lewis' critique on her work.
"Article is almost entirely produced using views of controversial authors such as Bat Ye'or": The "Notes" section top 5 mentioned (using texteditors word count):
~~Lewis 43 Stillman 22 Ye'or 13 Friedmann 8 Al-Mawardi 7~~
This doesn't support your assertion. --tm talk 02:20, 28 June 2006 (CEST)
Actually you just did my work for me. I said "like Bat Ye'or", not just Bat Ye'or. Though I like Bernard Lewis' work, he IS largely critisized for being an orientalist by scholars such as Edward Said. As for Lewis' criticism of Bat Ye'or, Aminz posted his sourced above. I'm unfamiliar with Stillman's biography for now. The exerpts form both his and Stillman's book that have been used in the article have been produced to represent a single view. Thus, the usage of the three authors' works constitute violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation is violated by the fact that all these views, regardless of the author's identities, are presented in the article as if they're undisputed fact. The distinction between fact and opinion is clearly spelled out, and I tried to edit this article to comply with that rule. Merzbow reverted that, explaining that WP:RS (it's mentioned in RS as well) is a guideline and not a policy. His Excellency... 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~You must be kidding me H.E. Let us examine your edits to this article since 6-21:~~
Here, you dump half a page of improperly referenced Lewis quotes on the Sources of dhimma section. Eventually and correctly reverted by Pecher after numerous attempts to re-add by you.

Here you add a long analysis stated as fact sourced from a web article written by a nobody on a web site nobody has heard of. Correctly reverted by me. You attempt to re-add it later, and are reverted by Pecher.

Here you add two fiqh rulings which are possibly relevant but not referenced properly, and a direct quote of a hadith with no commentary, which is not a proper source. Upon being challenged you correctly revert yourself, without even bothering to spend the time to reference the fiqh properly.

Here you near-vandalize the article by indiscriminately removing all the Ye'or material. Notice how you remove it and not attribute it to her as you incorrectly claim you tried to do above. Correctly reverted by Usher.
In conclusion, you have made no productive edits to this article recently (some I would judge that are in bad faith, made in the knowledge that they are inappropriate and would be immediately reverted). Worse, you misrepresent the edits you have made. Nowhere did you try to "edit the article to comply with the rule" to "spell out the distinction between fact and opinion", and nowhere did I revert you for that. - Merzbow 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The Lewis quotes were mentioned and discussed here in the talk page. It was Aminz who listed them here. Since nobody was making a move towards adding them to the article, I added them in. The proper action would have been to correct any citation errors, not to delete them entirely.

There is no WP rule that forbids the use of online sources. Online sources are used here all the time. Opendemocracy.net seems to be a valid website, and I checked on their credibility myself. You offered no justification for deleting its content used as reference here other than your ignorance of the website. I had known of it for some time. It's not Fox News, so I can't exactly blame you.

I deleted it myself when I found some content on the article to be less than credible. In doing so, I've exibited more 'good faith' than you have. I don't see why you're complaining.

I removed some of Ye'or's material though I probably SHOULD have removed all. The article uses her writings assuming it as fact, which is violation of WP:NPOV. I found that her education is in archeology, and though she did go to university to study 'social studies', she never graduated. She is not an authority on Islamic history and her work should not be presented here as undisputed fact.

MISLEADINGLY You 'fail' to note that I also rephrased statements where the credibility of the source was in question, to reflect that the statement was the view of the author (eg. Lewis said, according to Bat Ye'or) Here. This is the perscribed way to include opinions according to WP:NPOV. You took exception to my using the opendemocracy-net article in the same way Bat Ye'or and Lewis' views are taken to be facts, so clearly you understand the difference. The only explanation that accounts to your failing to apply the same standard to sources with different POVs is that you edit in bad faith. This also explains why you managed to give a detailed account of my edit history for the past week, but miraculously failed to note this one.
As for your other charges, I've pointed the definitions of 'fact' and 'opinion' to you from WP:RS, and I've explained how the treatment of sources here as fact violates that. You dismissed WP:RS as 'guidelines, not policy'. I pointed out that the same definitions are offered in WP:NPOV, which you've so far ignored. To make such misleading statements on the same page where they can be easily observed to be untrue just isn't smart. The things I've done WERE improvements on an article that would have been, and thanks to your and Pecher's reverts, IS still outright Islamophobic propaganda. As for you, the fact that you are a devout follower of WP guidelines when they suit you and then dismiss them when they don't; that you selectively list other user's edit to imply bad faith while selectively neglecting those that would suggest good faith; that you selectively apply the distinctions WP:POV makes between fact and opinion depending on the POV of the source...All goes to suggest that you're work here hasn't been produced with sincerely unbiased intent. His Excellency... 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So your adding of two unnecessary 'according tos' to Lewis material is supposed to absolve you of unilaterally deleting reams of cited material on Ye'or then misleadingly claiming that were doing nothing but attributing opinion? And no amount of hyperventilating is going to change that fact that an 'opendemocracy.net' article from a nobody is a laughable source for a historical article that is filled with citations from authors who've published multiple books and are recognized in their fields. It's not going to be allowed, period. - Merzbow 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz reviewed the academic credentials of that 'nobody'. She clearly has a better education on the topic than Bat Ye'or does. On what basis do you make the charge that opendemocracy.net is not a credible source while Bat Ye'or is. You've made no reference to any WP policy. The tone of voice you're using right now seems to be that of a bully, not as an editor with an ounce of good faith. "It's not going to be allowed"? By whom and by what rules? The ones you invent here? His Excellency... 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
H.E. 1. I said, I couldn't make any decision about her. Not that I approved her. 2. opendemocracy.net may be a reliable website but the burden of proof is unfortunately on you 3. The stuff you wanted to add can be supported by Lewis. I'll add it for you soon (but I am looking for even more attractive additions) --Aminz 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually checked the author of that quote and found some bio for her. She seemed to have relevant academic degree; I wasn't able to make any decision about her, so I left it for others to check it. --Aminz 07:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC) She has credentials, Bat Ye'or has none. 2) No other editor here has been made obligated to argue the validity of a source on introducing it. Now that I'm asked to, I'll argue for it. I take offense to being called out when nobody else is obligated to verify the credibility of their source, but then everything here is offensive. 3) Why the heck can't you add your own stuff to the article? What do you mean 'add it for you soon'? You've repeatedly offered me material to add to the site. If you can type on a talk page, why are you afraid to edit the main article? What's with the Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity act? His Excellency... 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I will do it man. The article needs major edits. Not just adding a sentence will solve the problem. H.E. You don't need to argue for reliablity of your source. It doesn't worth it. I said, I will back you up. I am slow and don't really know where I should start with. Moreover, I want to first read more and more. I want to get a much better sense of what this Lewis is saying. I want to grasp his work better. Then I will start adding big chunks of material to the article. There is no rush. I am also not good in english and busy with real life. I'll do it slowly by slowly. --Aminz 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought you were simply putting the responsibility of adding the material on me, when actually you're doing more thorough research. I mentioned this in your talk page: it's better you stick to 'real life' concerns and abandon this Wikipedia garbage. I should do that too. I'm not spending time buying books to correct this Wikipedia nonsense, and outside of this project, studying the human rights records of 12th century Muslim empires isn't exactly relevant to my life either. It's a waste of time. It's utterly useless. His Excellency... 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This must be the umpteenth time you've threatened to quit Wikipedia, calling it a 'waste of time'. Are we supposed to feel sorry for you? I'm puzzled as to why you feel that telling the world this ad nauseum is supposed to help us write a better encyclopedia. - Merzbow 05:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I copied the citation list to MS Word and counted the number of times Bat Ye'or's name appears in a list of 114 cited sources. 40 times for Bat Ye'or. 41 times for Lewis not including the one time his name is mentioned twice for the same cite. You can check it yourselves. I don't know what Tm was doing. So out of 114 sources, 81 are either from Bat Ye'or or Lewis. The phrase "blatant NPOV violations" isn't undeserved. His Excellency... 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~I'm inclined to agree as I noticed that as well. Netscott 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Lewis, "in my eyes", writes well. Edward Said may dispute works of Lewis, but I have personally good feeling about him. Bat Ye'or is polemical. I would like to find a more comperhensive views of her within the academia and within those who write about Dhimmi. There are claims that she is even better than some renowned academics like Lewis on some topics, yet Lewis doesn't approve her. The claims needs to be checked. --Aminz 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~That backfired. I copied the Notes section to User:Tickle_me/div1 now for us to have a common base. The result from 114 Lines (=entries) is:~~
~~43 Lewis 13 Bat Ye'or 27 Bat Ye’or 22 Stillman 8 Friedmann 8 Al-Mawardi~~
Some slip with Al-Mawardi, 7>8, but the same with Friedmann/Stillman/Lewis. However, at 02:20 I didn't notice two different spellings of Bat Ye’or to be existant. I happened to copy "Bat Ye'or" first to my editor's (ultraedit) search box which counts automatically and didn't bother to check for other spellings. "not including the one time his name is mentioned twice for the same cite": I didn't check that either as I didn't count myself. I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt as it wasn't likely to remain undetected. Anyway, from the above I see Bat Ye'or with 39 mentions to 81 from the others, or 39:80 discounting the double appearance of Lewis in one ref.
The stance that I contradicted was:
~~"Article is almost entirely produced using views of controversial authors such as Bat Ye'or":~~
~~...and I still do nonobstant my counting blunder.~~
"81 are either from Bat Ye'or or Lewis" now is a different assertion, so far you qualified Lewis like so: "Bat Ye'or's credibility as a scholar has been critisized by other, more reknowned, scholarship (Bernard Lewis, for example)". From that, it wasn't clear to me that you were putting him into the "controversial" group, which I don't - that goes for Stillman and Friedmann too. Mawardi can't be ranged in here as being from the 11th century, Bat Ye'or IMO is controversial for the political inferences drawn from her works.
I still would like to have the academic sources debunking her scholarship beyond encyclopedic notability mentioned, though. Besides, please source Lewis' critique of her work, which I don't know of for the time being. --tickle me 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've said I'd do this several times before (this thing is bloody addictive), but I'm determined now. I'm withdrawing my participation from this article, its talk page, and all articles that feature this same problem. The Pechers and Merzbows and Timothy Ushers can have it all. It's a worthless waste of time to expect any fair representation of the Muslim view or anything sympathetic to it. You folks can devote your time to what you hate. You're wasting your lives. You can up the ratio of Bat Ye'or's contribution here to 114:0. Have fun with that. Just see to it that the disputed tag stays. I've made my points, I stand by them, and I've pointed out the hypocrites here who are playing games; I've done all I could reasonably have done. His Excellency... 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Good books~~
H.E. Some good books written on Dhimmi are the following. If you quote anything from any of these, that would be nice.
Two excellent books (according to lewis):
1. Norman Stillman, The jews of Arab lands: A history and source book (Philadelphia 1979)
2. Mark R. Cohen, "The Jews under Islam: from the Rise of Islam to Sabbatai Zavi", 1976 pp. 169-229
On Islamic tolerance:
If available English translation of: "Toleranz und Intoleranz im Islam" 1970 by Rudi Paret
Regards, --Aminz 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
These books are trash. If you want to know of Islamic history, use Muslim sources, not Orientalist western ones. Lewis is better than most Westerners but he's not 'good'. He still operates from a western condescending POV. His Excellency... 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~This is an important point. Pecher said they are primary sources. I don't agree. We don't need the orientalists to teach us our own culture!! Good point! --Aminz 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Aminz, don't ask me to do your work for you. His Excellency... 04:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
It is not my work either. It is not my major. I suggested that these are the works one can use and nobody will dispute them. But if you are not interested, there is no obligation of course. --Aminz 05:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~The Stillman book is available for search at Amazon. I can't find the Cohen book, though. Would be nice if somebody could dig that up. - Merzbow 05:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Yup! I'll look for it. --Aminz 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Second class citizenship~~
Lewis is drawing an analogy between the condition of Dhimmi and the term "Second class citizenship". He doesn't say this analogy is 100% true but is a good analogy. Turning "Second class citizenship" into "Second class subjects"(together with a link into second-class citizenship) and pretending that the analogy is 100% is true is not acceptable to me. I think the current edit of mine is just lengthy. --Aminz 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lewis is not "drawing an analogy" he is stating as a fact(in his opinion as a scholar) that dhimmi's are second class citizen under dhimmi law. This he goes on to clarifiy and contextualise by mentioning that dhimmi implied citizenship and the bad treatment of non-cristian groups living under the Catholic Church. As i said above "He points out that this rank is better having no citizenship (non-person) or even worse being an "threat to the state" and being hunted down (as catholics were in england under Elizabeth the first). I think this means second class citizen accurately discribes the status of Dhimmi both citizens and having less rights that a muslim." . The further clarification of why it is second-class citizenship should be found in the Status of Dhimmi's section.Hypnosadist 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The concept of citizenship itself is a modern concept. Dhimmis were not citizens (because this concept is modern), they were actually subjects. We've got the word "second-class citizenship" in our modern language together with its connotations. (There was no such concept back then cause citizenship was not there) Lewis says, they were such and such "or as we say nowadays" had "second-class citizenship". But then he makes it clear that this word in our modern language has some meanings and tries to mention what he means by this word. If you read the passage(quoted above), he is not using this to condemn Dhimmi as this word does in our language BUT I am still confused why some people here insist using this term without adding Lewis's explanation. --Aminz 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you were unjustified in reverting away all my edits to the intro. The organization was biased, placing the statement about Christian Europe before any actual explanation about what being a dhimmi was, and you deleted badly needed grammar cleanup. Your most recent edit ballooned the intro way too large. And I changed the quote to 'second-class citizens' to be more accurate. Nobody is pretending the analogy is 100% true; we have explicitly attributed to analogy to Lewis as is all we are required to do, and people who want to read 10 pages for context can find the source and do so. - Merzbow 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. You reverted my edits with the explanation that "second-class citizenship" should be added there, so I added them for you (as Lewis explains them of course). I prefer to remove the whole "second-class citizenship" thing since it is just lengthy. You can not quote part of Lewis words and neglect the following sentences. If Lewis tries to explains his analogy, we must be faithful to him. Lewis himself tries to clear up some bad meanings of this word, but you want to leave it alone for people to go and read and you well know that nobody will read. 2. The reason I started with a comparison was the same reason that Lewis starts with comparisons. What this article really lacks is to let the reader know that our standard has been changed. Tolerance (which contains treatment of non-believers in itself by definition) was not a big deal in the past for all of us. Why do we want to cover this? Instead of comparison, I agree mentioning that nowhere tolerance was valued. The historical context should be given before the historical events are explained. --Aminz 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The comparison is very useful in providing the context. Lewis said (Sorry for repeating the Lewis quote again) + we now how Lewis defines tolerance :"What indeed do we mean by tolerance? In dealing with such subjects there is an inevitable tendency to assess and evaluate by comparison. If we speak of tolerance in Islam, we shall soon find ourselves measuring tolerance in Islam against tolerance in others societies- in Christendom, in India, in the Far East, or perhaps in the modern West. (Then Lewis goes on explaining what kind of comparison is valid…)"--Aminz 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comment is self-contradictory: first, you say that the comparison is useful and the n proceed to quote Lewis as saying that attempts to make this sort of comparison lead nowhere. Pecher ^Talk 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I read page 82-83 more carefully and noticed I was misunderstanding part of it. Lewis tries to dismiss the kind of comparisons polemics make there.

He makes some comparisons however. In page 82 for example, he compares Jews of Christendom and the Jews of Islam. But my comment was self-contradictory. --Aminz 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I removed the second-class quote, and edited the flow and grammar. This is the intro, it shouldn't be allowed to grow too large; anything we want to expand on in detail should go into the main article sections. - Merzbow 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro is increasingly becoming a repository for assorted Lewis quotes with disregard for NPOV, balance, and good writing. The latter I attribute to the undue haste, it really has slipped out of control. We are not to write essays in the WP:LEAD, which asks for three or four paragraphs with large articles. The lead "should briefly summarize the most important points", we won't have that by digressing to the French Revolution right away. It is not the place for comparisons and analogies whose semantics need to be explained. --tickle me 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Then there is also no need for rate of conversion of Dhimmis to Islam, distinctive clothing, etc, etc. Only the first paragraph should remain then. --Aminz 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
WP:POINT, Aminz. Yes, there is a need to write about conversion, distinctive clothing etc. because the intro must summarize the content of the body of the article, instead of saying something that cannot be found elsewhere in the article. I understand the urge to sweep it all under the carpet, but it won't work. Pecher ^Talk 09:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF, Huh! There is no "urge to sweep it all under the carpet"! What a misconception! I am trying to add the historical contexts. I also truly observed who was "sweeping facts under the carpet"--Aminz 09:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you please clarify who and what facts? In addition, please explain how a wholesale removal of the key issues about dhimmis constitutes an addition of historical context. Pecher ^Talk 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that our moral standards have changed over time. The fact that “tolerance” is a new virtue. I don't have any problem with stating in the intro that Dhimmis were humiliated, but as long as we say how the Dhimmi laws were viewed at that time. People were not greatly offended by the absence of tolerance in others, and that Jews for example were grateful. I just want to make sure that readers don't look at the history from modern eyes. I tried to make the intro more neutral but it got long. We had a discussion over the historical context before but without any concensus. --Aminz 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that jewish dhimmi's where "grateful" at being allowed to live just shows they know the true nature of Universe and humans not that the dhimmi laws were in some way acceptable to them.Hypnosadist 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it had two reasons: 1. They were so under pressure from Christians that they were feeling greatful under the Muslim rule. 2. Their moral standards were different from ours. Human rights was the "radical" views of the French Revolution. --Aminz 01:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Human (individual) rights were the radical view of the American Declaration of Independence; the radical views of the French Revolution were socialist egalitarianism, which led swiftly to the guillotine.--Mike18xx 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
~~More references are needed~~
The reference for the following quote is Lewis (1984) page 10.
In more details, Dhimmis were allowed to retain their religion and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims ruling over them and accepting Muslim supremacy, which involved various restrictions and legal impediments placed on them, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims, and the requirement to wear distinctive clothing
I was looking for a reference for "which involved various restrictions and legal impediments placed on them, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims, and the requirement to wear distinctive clothing"
But wasn't able to find any. Could one please complete the references. Thanks --Aminz 09:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, can you explain the 'humiliation was permanent and indeed necesarry" quote from Lewis? It's a strange comment for him to make, unless he explained that point further. His Excellency... 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lewis says discrimination, not humiliation. Lewis believes the equality in Islam is limited to free male believers. So, he believes there was always discrimination between masters&slaves; men and women; believers&unbelievers. Lewis writes:
"Of the three victims of social inferiority, therefore, the unbeliever was the only one who remained inferior by his own choice. He was also the one whose disabilities were on the whole the least onerous of the three. Other things being equal, it was more comfortable to be a free male believer than a woman or a slave in Muslim society. Perhaps for this very reason it was felt to be more necessary with an unbeliever than with a woman or a slave to enforce or at least visibly to symbolize the status of inferiority. "--Aminz 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Intro size~~
~~As Pecher's tag indicates, the intro is clearly too large now. According to the Wikipedia layout style guide:~~
Unless an article is very short, it should start with a lead section consisting of one or more introductory paragraphs. The lead is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headings). The appropriate lead length depends on the length of the article, but should be no longer than three paragraphs.
~~So what do we summarize and what do we remove (or move elsewhere)? - Merzbow 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
I am not really fine with removal of OR tag, but am unwilling to add it now.

Yes, let me think how we can reduce the size of intro. --Aminz 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Any suggestion? --Aminz 23:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~How about shift the second paragraph and those following it to the beginning of the "status of dhimmi' section? His Excellency... 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~sounds good to me!--Aminz 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Looks good. We should probably subdivide "status of dhimmi" into two or more subsections now due to the size increase. - Merzbow 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Yup. After it was revised though. --Aminz 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Pecher, if you would like to revise the intro, please let us know your proposal. Thanks --Aminz 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I've restored the intro back to three paragraphs. It's simply inappropriate for an article of this size to have a puny one-paragraph intro. Pecher ^Talk 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I've also cut the intro to the "Status" section, as it has become bloated and completely unreadable. Pecher ^Talk~~
~~Pecher, you don't own the article. Your undiscussed edits to the article while you know they are controversial doesn't seem to show your good faith. --Aminz 23:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Likewise, please don't revert good-faith compromise edits others have put work into without discussion. After Pecher restored his version I put effort into moving almost all the additional Lewis information in your version back into the article. The French Revolution/modern dhimma info clearly belongs in the Modern dhimma section. I kept the dhimma/christian world comparison in the intro, along with the 'persecution was rare' quote. I put the Lewis quote about tolerance at the top of the Status section. This way, no one section is too large. You've gotten everything specific that you've wanted, Aminz - the 'second-class' quote is gone and the balancing quotes from Lewis are in. What we can't have is the article to remain in a clearly malformed state with stuff not being in the appropriate sections, making certain sections way too large. - Merzbow 00:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
compromise, which compromise? When did I compromise with your version? I don't know how one can interpret Pecher's reverting everything back to almost his own version. And I am not happy with your so-called compromise version. Who says it reflects the historical context clearly? Who says conversion thing should go to intro? The distinct clothing stuff was falsely cited to Lewis. Lewis never says those things at the page referenced. I DON'T LIKE to start everything over from where Pecher wants. Pecher almost erased everything I added. If he removed the second-class thing, it was simply because it wasn't supported by the source and not out of his kindness. --Aminz 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Aminz: you're not reading carefully. I put back all of the information you added in your version. All of the information in Pecher's version is in there too, and it was never removed in your version - you just moved things around and added your stuff (except for the now gone second-class quote). My version is nothing more than your version with information moved to the correct sections. And I'll remove the clothing bit, as it is referenced improperly. - Merzbow 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
~~And if you don't want the conversion section in the intro, fine, I'll summarize it in one sentence and move it somewhere else. - Merzbow 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Attributing controversial material~~
To those skeptical of the Ye'or cites (and possibly others)... I don't have any objections in principle to saying According to Ye'or in front of material from her that is controversial. WP:RS even says this is required of material that is not a fact by the definition "a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic." The problem here is that there aren't that many scholars in this area, so determining what the actual consensus is can be somewhat difficult. I don't think the argument that she isn't a reliable source holds any water; not having a university job and having one professor (even one of the stature of Lewis) make disparaging remarks about you does not outweigh a long recognized career that has produced numerous books on the subject. Anyways, I think a good start would be to list the specific cites in the article are most controversial, then we can consider attributing them. - Merzbow 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't say her quotes must be removed. We say they should be significantly reduced. See, she has rank 2 or 3 as to the amount of quotes.

Plus another point, Edward Said disputes even Lewis's works. So, We should somewhere say once that Said disputes Lewis; Lewis says Bat Ye'or emphasizes on negative things. Maybe we need a small section on how this article is written. --Aminz 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, we msut stick to the subject instead of digressing into mudslinging between scholars. Said, being a professor of literature, does not dispute any of Lewis's or others' findings. Orientalism is simply a personal attack on all Western scholars; Said's arguments boil down to claim that no Westerner can write correctly about the East unless this Westerner supports some political causes of some Easterners. On Wikipedia, Said would have been blocked indefinitely for commenting only on persons, not on content. Regarding controversial material in general... Something becomes controversial only when it is disputed; disputed by other scholars, not by wikipedians. In this case, we usually resolve the problem by writing "A says X, while B says Y". Unless there is no B saying Y, there is usually no need to write "A says X". Common sense is also applicable, of course, but that's the general rule. Pecher ^Talk 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Said's argument is very relevant especially when we see people like Bat Ye'or exist who believe Islam has no future. A section on our resources for this article is quite relevant. People would not be able to distinguish between Lewis and Bat Ye'or. --Aminz 10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
People do not need to distinguish between Lewis and Ye'or where they agree. Where they disagree, we can then attribute the Ye'or quote on that issue to Ye'or, assuming that due to Lewis' stature we can say that he can break the 'consensus of scholars' by himself.
And we're not qualified to serve as judge and jury over these people. This is just ordinary squabbling between scholars. If Ye'or had been discredited by a panel of experts, had books written against her by eminent personalities, been accused of fraud, and so on, it would be a different matter. But none of this has happened. I hope that someday more professors of the stature of Lewis will write more on that subject. Then we can deemphasize Ye'or's work in favor of them. - Merzbow 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
When I first read this article a few days ago and contributed to this talk page I said that writers like Bat Ye'or could be used as long as they were balanced with another point of view. That seems like a long time ago now and I have since changed my mind. I have seen no clear arguments put as to why Bat Ye'or is a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. I have seen several arguments why she is not. Her credibility has been called into question even by those who are arguing from a similar viewpoint. I cannot for the life of me see why she should be described as a scholar. She has never held an academic post. She does not publish in scholarly journals. Admittedly, she has published books with a press based in a university, but it is a very minor university, and we do not know if her books have been subject to the process of peer review. Would who supports using her as a source like to give a reason why - a reason other than "because I say so"? Then we can either discuss from there, or proceed straight away to taking out all the statements that rely only on her and completely restructuring the article. Itsmejudith 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The reasons have been given many times, so please stop bringing up this argument over and over again. So far, we've never seen a single scholarly source disproving anything she writes or even disagreeing with her on a certain specific point. Scholars, of course, disagree on their general assessments of dhimma (was it good or bad or good for its own time only etc), but that's not the subject for an encyclopedia article. I suppose you didn't change your mind on Karen Armstrong, did you? Pecher ^Talk 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, give us specific examples of who is 'calling her credibility into question', how, and why this calling into question is severe enough to completely discount her as a source. Please stop with the accusations against this author unless you can back them up. Second, if there were enough professors publishing in this field, then her work would be discounted in favor of them. But there aren't, so we use the best sources we have in order to keep the article informative. Again, are you going to proceed to the Pokeman articles next and attack all of their sources because they do not originate from tenured professors?
In summary, the burden of proof to discount an author who has published many books on a subject through a university press, has been recognized as an authority in her field and has not been accused of any wrongdoing is clearly on you. - Merzbow 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not at all my reading of WP: RS, and please note that there are extra notes for sources in historical articles. Bat Ye'or is a controversial writer and yet the article relies on her heavily. I described her as a polemicist - that's not a crime, not wrongdoing. It doesn't mean there is nothing valuable at all in what she does; it just creates problems for using her work as a source for an encyclopedic article. The burden of proof is on those who introduce a source. If no-one is willing to summarise the arguments in favour of basing the article on this writer's work, how then are we going to move towards consensus?Itsmejudith 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. My very previous paragraph began with "In summary". There is your argument for including her. Now either you doubt the claims put forth in my summary, in which case please tell me which you doubt and why, or you accept them. If you accept them, you believe there are yet other grounds that overweigh the claims I've put forward in support. You have mentioned 'polemicist'. This is a very strong accusation. I think it goes without saying that you must back this up. - Merzbow 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep this issue on a hold. I and Itsmejudith want to syncronize ourself together first. And Merzbow, please do not appear as you were not following our discussion. Campus Watch, if reliable, says :"Bat Ye'or also was criticized by John Esposito, director of Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, for lacking academic credentials." AND YOU KNOW if we can prove "John Esposito" criticized Bat Ye'or on that ground, her credibility will go under serious doubt (since a renowned academic doubt the credibility of Bat Ye'or, why should we accept?); there is a bunch of criticism around her. We are not speaking out of hot air. Give us, please, time to present our evidences in their most beautiful way. Thanks --Aminz 23:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
CampusWatch is a web site for political activism, certainly not a reliable source. I think I asked a very fair question at the outset of this section; namely, which material specifically in this article that is cited to Bat Ye'or do you disagree with? I daresay the chance that you're going to be successful in building a case to discredit a widely-published author in a specialty field is very low indeed. And in the meantime, the article is not being improved. Instead of going down that avenue, why not take my suggestion to identify the actual cites you have a problem with, then we can work on them (whatever that entails)? - Merzbow 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Merzbow, if there is something Bat Ye'or says and others agree, why don't we use the other ones, and if there is something she herself says, then exactly that's where we have problem. I may email John Esposito or Bernard Lewis and ask them for help here. If I can find a renowned scholar who discredits Bat Ye'or as an academic reliable source, I would be done. It is not as hard as you think. --Aminz 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found reliable sources that "John Esposito", a renowned scholar, has criticized Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials. (It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsmejudith#Criticism_of_Bat_Ye.27or ) Furthermore:
"Julia Segall, president of the Georgetown Israel Alliance, and Daniel Spector, president of the Jewish Student Alliance, called the lecture a "disaster" in Friday's edition of Hoya, a student newspaper. Bat Ye'or and Mr. Littman "made no effort to make a clear distinction between pure, harmonious Islam and the acts of a few who falsely claim to act in the name of Islam," they wrote." --Aminz 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
A couple of Jewish students criticizing Bat Ye'or is, of course, the most damning evidence against her that has been unearthed so far. If we exclude every author who has ever been criticized, we'll be left with no sources at all. Aminz, you have several times brought up criticism of Bernard Lewis by Edward Said; why not exclude Bernard Lewis on that basis? Lewis's disciple Martin Kramer, for example, does not treat John Esposito as a serious scholar[8]. Esposito heads a Saudi-financed center for Muslim-Christian understanding; at the very least, his neutrality is highly dubious. Pecher ^Talk 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
See, this is exactly why I believe humanities is pseudo-science; I am doing math, whatever I "prove" nobody can dispute but I get disappointed when I see people's personalities has this much effect on what they say in humanities. Lewis was writing somewhere about works on possible sources of Qur'an. The content as I remember in a vague way was that he said that one author considered Muhammad to be influenced by Jewish sources, but later another scholar wrote another book to "credit" the influence of Qur'an to Christian sources. All these people have a point but both Said and Bat Ye’or are just projecting “what they like to be true” each in one way or the other way. Lewis maybe also doing that in a deeper level and so is Esposito. I wish there were no religion, no prejudice and no trouble. Bat Ye’or’s views, true or false are not constructive. She, to my mind, is spreading negative energy. But anyways, I don’t dispute quoting from Bat Ye’or anymore, except that the number of her quotes would be reduced significantly. --Aminz 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not humanities, but social science. Why should the number of quotes from Bat Ye'or be reduced? Because you dislike her? That's not an argument. What specific material referenced to her works do you dispute? Maybe it's high time we stopped mudslinging here and focus on the article and some specific points in it? Pecher ^Talk 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I created this section to focus on this very point - what material in the article from Ye'or do people still have trouble with? I, for one, will listen to all good arguments about how a specific cite is inappropriate, overwhelming, or in need of attribution. - Merzbow 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
From the page you linked to Aminz:
Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, said Bat Ye'or's research into Turkish, Persian and Arabic documents dating back to the eighth century has not been contested.
"What's notable is [various academics] don't attempt to refute her work, which is scholarly and documented," he said. "Those who oppose it owe it to her to engage her work at the scholarly level, which it deserves."
Aside from rumours, the only specific criticism mentioned is that "Abdelaziz Sachedina, a religious studies professor at the University of Virginia, points out that Bat Ye'or used highly polemic sources written by the victims of dhimmitude," an absolutely absurb statement. If we're going to throw out all historical material drawn from the victims of a process, we may as well trash all the testimony of Jewish holocaust victims and admit the Shoah might not have occurred. Now if Ye'or had only used sources from victims while ignoring other sources that might be an issue, but this is not what Professor Sachedina accused her of.
The best way to fix the alleged issues with Ye'or is to find a reliable source with a different POV. - Merzbow 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Lewis said, Bat Ye'or emphasizes the negative aspects of Dhimmi. --Aminz 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
A dhimmi is a person; Bat Ye'or did not emphasize the negative qualitites of dhimmis. Lewis meant that Bat Ye'or emphasized the negative aspects of the life of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. This is not the same as emphasizing the negative aspects of dhimma. Pecher ^Talk 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
~~Yes, :) Lewis exactly says: Bat Ye'or emphasizes the negative aspects of the Muslim record. --Aminz 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
Lewis says where, aside from rumours posted on activist message boards? If you can actually get an email from him discussing his views of Ye'or, that will certainly have to be taken into consideration, but so far, I've seen nothing reliable. - Merzbow 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
He says it on page 194 of The Jews of Islam, but that's not an argument that disqualifies Bat Ye'or as a source. First, Lewis himself does not attempt to disqualify her; why should we approach historiography with higher standards than he does? Secondly, negative aspects of history are not the same as negative aspects of dhimma, as the status of dhimmis is by itself a negative aspect of history. For example, achievements of dhimmi scholars can be viewed as "postiive" aspects of history, while their status as dhimmis, including the requirements to pay the jizya or to wear degrading clothing, can be viewed as a "negative" aspect. This is not to say, that achievements of dhimmi scholars must be brought into this article, just for balance, because this article is about the Islamic legal concept of dhimmi: what the consensus opinion of Muslim scholars was and how that opinion was implemented in practice; everything else is beyond the scope of this article. Thirdly, if some "positive" aspects of the status of dhimmis have been omitted by Bat Ye'or, the problem is easily rectified by adding what she has omitted, not by removing what she has written. Pecher ^Talk 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Lewis says on page 194; reader can judge whether Lewis has a condemning tone there for the two writters he mentions or not: "Two other works, which emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record, are Bat Ye'or, "name of a book", and Karl Binswanger, "name of a book". The latter is very critical of what he calls the "dogmatic Islamophilia" of many orientalists." I am sure Pecher is going to claim that Binswanger is also a reliable source. --Aminz 01:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Indeed, why not? Pecher ^Talk 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Bravmann~~
Why is this a reliable source? I couldn't find anything about it online:
Bravmann, Meïr M. (1966). "The ancient background of the Qur’ānic Concept Al-Ğizyatu ‘an Yadin". Arabica 13.
--Aminz 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote is also vague ("a legal claim for reward"), does anybody has the book? What is the exact quote. --Aminz 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You must be kidding: this is a work by Meir Moshe Bravmann, a famous orientalist, published in a peer-reviewed journal Arabica. This is not just a reliable source; it's cream of the crop. Pecher ^Talk 09:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Google "Meir Moshe Bravmann", there is nothing much! I googled his book, the only link I found was Dhimmi article of wikipeida. It was nice if we had an article on Meir Moshe Bravmann or Arabica (this one is directed to caffee arabica! ). But I was just asking. --Aminz 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
~~[9]. Doesn't appear to be online, although you can order individual copies through this link. I suppose large university libraries might have it also. - Merzbow 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)~~
~~And why Bravmann's quote is related to Dhimmi. Who makes this important connection? It is OR so far. --Aminz 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I agree. Pecher, how does he tie this to dhimma? - Merzbow 00:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Eagleswings, who inserted the quote, may be better equipped to comment on that. Pecher ^Talk 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Arabica is a highly prestigious peer-reviewed journal which has been publishing leading research on Arabic and Islamic matters for more than 50 years. It can be found in any library with a serious collection of Arabic language and culture materials. Bravmann can be found by googling "MM Bravmann" - there are more than 500 entries. He was a leading expert in semitic studies, and specifically in the pre-Islamic roots of Islam in Arabic culture. (See e.g. his The Spiritual Background of Early Islam. Brill. Leiden 1972 (Studies in Ancient Arab Concepts). This is a relevant quotation because it makes the point that the concept of paying a reward to one's conqueror had roots in pre-Islamic Arabic culture. This quotation belongs in the etymology section - where it was originally placed not in the origins section. I don't know when this was moved, and by whom, but I propose to put it back in the etymology section. Eagleswings 12:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but could you please explian what does it have to do with "etymology". It seems related to "sources of jizya". Could you please also leave a comment on my following comment. Thanks --Aminz 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No this is not specifically about jizya, but about the meaning of 'dhimma' as a 'liability arising from a fault, blame or debt'. The 'etymology' of a word explains the origins of the meaning of a word and how it developed later meanings. Thus the etymology section explains how the root dh-m-m meaning 'to blame' or 'liability arising from blame or a debt' came to be used to refer to a treaty of surrender. Bravmann's quote provides the crucial explanation for this change in meaning. This is a linguistic issue, concerning the semantic origins of the dh-m-m root in pre-Islamic Arabic culture. In contrast the immediately following sections of the article now titlted 'origins of the dhimma concept' refer to legal and historial developments under Muslims rule, relating to Islamic sources and history. This is different from etymology. Eagleswings 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Islam is also relevant: "Starting from the indisputable fact that in the very early texts the words ù3izya and Õ9ar§ù3 are constantly taken either in the wide sense of collective tribute or else in apparently narrower but interchangeable senses ( Õ9ar§ù3 on the head, ù3izya on land, as well as vice versa), Wellhausen, and then Becker and Caetani etc., built up a system according to which the Arabs, at the time of the conquest, are alleged to have levied collective tribute on the defeated, without taking the trouble to distinguish between the different possible sources of tax, and it was only the multiplicity of conversions which, at the very end of the Umayyad rule, led, particularly in ö9ur§s§n, to a distinction in the total revenues being made between two taxes, the one on the person, ceasing with the status of ù9immÊ , the other on land which remained subject to the obligations placed upon it by the conquest. This theory, apart from the prejudicial question that it contradicts the opinion of all classical jurists, in fact comes up against numerous difficulties and recently has been severely breached, especially by Løkkegaard and even more by Dennett whose conclusions, in their general lines and inspiration, no longer seem to be refutable, although even they do not answer all the problems which they in their turn raise. They have demonstrated completely that the texts often make an effective distinction between the tax on land and the tax on the person, even if the term denoting them is variable, ....."
All this is saying is that Wellhausen, Becker and Caetani had argued that the jizya arose out of general tribute imposed upon the conquered, not originally specifically for non-Muslims or specificaly a head tax. However, as the passage notes, this view is contradicted by all classical jurists (and they ought to know Islamic law) and more recent scholars have pointed out other numerous problems with this theory of orientalists. I don't see this as all that helpful and relevant for the dhimmi article. It is really a footnote.Eagleswings 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
~~It seems to me that this is just a theory. See the full article here ([10]) --Aminz 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~possible compromise on Ye'or~~
~~I find this view posted by a user in February to this talk page to be instructive, so I'll repost it in full:~~

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

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

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

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

The gist is that her documentary work is notable and should be included, but her opinions and analyses should not be counted as heavily as other scholars. I've always agreed with this, so I'll try make a pass over the article to see what can be attributed or even removed without harm. We can surely meet partway on this. - Merzbow 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I've made a first pass. Attributed some stuff, deleted and replaced some stuff with superior material. - Merzbow 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Thanks Merzbow. --Aminz 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. To further endorse Merzbow's approach, I've found a couple of reviews of Bat Ye'or (2002), 'Islam and Dhimmitude' illustrating that established scholars tend to hold her work at arm's length.
1. Robert Irwin in 'Middle Eastern Studies' 38 (4), Oct 2002, 313-316.
This starts off by agreeing that there is a tolerance myth that should be countered, and accuses both Esposito and Said. Author goes on to say, basically, that Bat Ye'or's contribution is an embarrassment to her own side. The quote below sums up what I have been trying to say about the way this article falls into POV.
"In an effort to gather as much material as possible for her religio-cultural indictment, Bat Ye'or repeatedly jumbles up religious prescriptions and acts of political expediency, state policy and mob fever, ideals and practices. The story presented of anti-dhimmi pogroms and riots, confiscations and restrictive legislation regarding the celebration of religious services, distinctive costumes, the ban on bearing of arms and so forth is miserable indeed, but quite unbalanced. Christians and Jews often flourished politically and economically under Muslim rule and provisions in the Shari'a that discriminated against Christians and Jews were regularly flouted."
2. T. Pulcini in 'Middle East Journal', 56 (4), Fall 2002.
This one is much more favourable. He describes Bat Ye'or's work as "meticulously substantiated and carefully presented". Nevertheless, he concludes:
"Many will consider Bat Ye'or's views alarmist and her scholarship tainted by an ideological agenda which ultimately shapes not only what historical data she presents but under what thematic categories she presents it. Nevertheless, her work is a perhaps necessary corrective to the romanticization of Islam current in many "enlightened" circles in the West. The truth probably lies somewhere between such views and those presented in this book."
So both these reviewers are critical of the way that Bat Ye'or categorises her evidence. That is why I think that as well as trying to expand the number of reliable sources used in this article we also need to revise the structure of headings under which the subject is addressed.Itsmejudith 10:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
~~What suggestions do you have regarding the headings (or problem that you see)? - Merzbow 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Ideally I'd like to see a chronological structure. I did think that it would be possible to pull all the sharia stipulations into one early section and then lay out how these were (and weren't) applied in different places over the years. But having had a go at rewriting the Places of Worship section in this way I see that many of the statements that make up the law were made well after the events that are supposed to illustrate them. See FA History of the Jews in Poland for a way to approach a similar history.Itsmejudith 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if that chronology structure would work here... problem is that dhimmi were treated so differently in different lands at the same time. I'm not saying that a chronological 'history of dhimmi' section or subarticle wouldn't be valuable, just that I think it's not the best organization for a broad topic like this. If somebody sees NPOV problems with the headings we have now, certainly we can change/add things. - Merzbow 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Point taken on board, Merzbow, but it's possible to have a structure that is both chronological and geographic. Either main headings are time periods and subheadings are regions. Or main headings are regions and subheadings are time periods. Albert Hourani does approximately the first option in A History of the Arab Peoples, regarded as a standard text. I'm not categorical about what structure is best. I just think that the existing one gives the impression that the whole history was just one injustice after another, which does not chime well with the consensus of historians. Itsmejudith 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the chronological/geographical format would be a good idea. The state the article is in right now is more easy to contribute to, but it relays a mishmash of policies mixing up regions and customs...I don't think this article conveys an accurate image of the "Dhimmi" matter to the reading audience. His Excellency... 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a chronology would be good, but I also think the characteristic structure is good also. We don't have to choose one. Instead, we can place Status of dhimmis in a subarticle. We can also create a History of dhimma subarticle that we can expand to whatever length we want. Dhimmi would summarize and link to both. This article is getting too large as it is. - Merzbow 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Yup, the chronological/geographical format would be a good idea. --Aminz 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I have moved some chunks of text around in a way that I hope creates more logic. I see it as a preliminary to the chronological/geographical format, but I hope it will make sense in its own right too. These movements of text imply other rewriting work, especially of the "humiliation" section. That, I think, should cease to exist in its own right and most of the material should go into the "taxation" section. BTW the relationship between jizya and kharaj seems to have been complex but important in determining relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims. Lewis has been referred to and Courbage & Fargues also have relevant points.
~~Shia ritual purity~~
I revised the section using Lewis's work. I wasn't able to revise the following two sentences since they were quoted from Bat Ye'or and Littman (to which I didn't have access):
"In Persia, where Shi'ism is dominant, these beliefs brought about restrictions that aimed at limiting physical contact between Muslims and dhimmis. Persian Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city, banning them from public baths."
--Aminz 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I can take a look at the sources tomorrow... all three of the books (Ye'or, Littman, Lewis) sourced are actually on books.google.com and Amazon so they can be searched online. - Merzbow 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Ye'or's book. I wasn't find anything supporting the "Persian Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city, banning them from public baths." there. I wasn't able to look up Littman's book since its text was not available on books.google.com and on amazon. These two claims should be quoted there, I think. --Aminz 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I also checked the Littman's book : http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/littman_jews_under_muslims_case_of_persia.pdf
But wasn't able to find support for "Persian Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city, banning them from public baths."
Pecher, can you correct the links? --Aminz 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Littman isn't available online, I mistook him for Friedmann. Anyways, thanks for doing the detective work here. It's probably worth it to double-check all the controversial portions of this article. BTW Pecher's talk page says he's on Wikibreak until July 9. - Merzbow 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved this section and the one on "marriage" into the "social and psychological aspects section". Because if marriage and ritual purity are not social and psychological, I don't know what is. I am going to add a quote from Wheatcroft which sheds light on the purity issue and relates to Sunnis as well as Shias. I will take off the Shia word, but it could go back on if we are sure that there are important distinctions between Sunni and Shia. Itsmejudith 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wheatcroft's quote is about social isolation of different religious groups. That's an interesting and important subject, but it has nothing to do with ritual purity. Pecher ^Talk 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Attitude to bells~~
I removed a sentence about a hadith saying that "bells are the instruments of Satan". This is because in this context, coming immediately after the mention of church bells being banned, the clear implication was that Muhammed hated bells because they were associated with Christians. But if you search for 'bell' in the hadith database (on the university website that was linked) you find that the interpretation of this hadith is by no means straightforward and that there are other hadiths that refer to bells in a neutral or positive way. In the absence of guidance from a specialist in Islamic law we should steer clear of such muddy waters.Itsmejudith 22:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Yup, hadith are primary sources precisely because of the difficulty of determining reliability and so should not be cited directly. - Merzbow 00:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Thanks for clarifying this. Then we need to check that primary sources are handled properly throughout the article - i.e. that each time one is referred to there is also a reference to one or more good secondary sources.Itsmejudith 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Alot of musical instruments have been 'forbidden', not just bells. Stringed instruments are particularly forbidden. I don't know why. His Excellency... 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I have read all the hadiths from four collections, including the two sahih ones, and they not refer to bells in a positive way. The bell hadiths either refer i) to Muhammad's comment that his revelations came with a sound like a ringing bell, or ii) to the rejection of bells as a way of calling people to prayer, associating them with Christians, or iii) to the demonic / Satanic nature of bells, e.g.:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Angels do not accompany the travellers who have with them a dog and a bell.
Ibn az-Zubayr told that a woman client of theirs took az-Zubayr's daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab wearing bells on her legs. Umar cut them off and said that he had heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: There is a devil along with each bell.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The bell is the musical instrument of the Satan.
Such hadiths are not hard to interpret - they repeatedly make the same point: bells are evil. The proposal that hadiths may not be referred to directly is unwarranted. Hadiths attested in the sahih collections (Muslim and al-Bukhari) are generally regarded as reliable (that is what 'sahih' means). However I do agree with Itsmejudith that this sentence on Muhammad's hatred of bells does not belong here. The point is that public displays of non-Muslim religions were banned (not only bells, but also the shofar), not that Muhammad hated bells or that he regarded bells as Satanic. Eagleswings 14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we have looked through the same resource and found the same hadiths and I agree that there are three groupings. The revelation coming like the sound of a bell was the one I thought was positive because what is more positive than association with the word of God. The calling to prayer rather than using bell or shofar I thought was neutral because the stress appeared to be on the appropriateness of the verbal call for Islam rather than finding fault with the Christian or Jewish practices. And the reference to the bell as the instrument of Satan is the one that can be interpreted as highly negative but to me it is completely obscure. Why would someone want to go on a journey with a dog and a bell? Could not the disapproval of a girl wearing bells on her legs be about the morality of dance and display rather than about this musical instrument?
Your puzzlement seems odd. The point about the journey is really clear: Muhammad is saying that if a traveller has a bell, or if he has a dog, angels will not go with him. Angels hate bells and dogs, so they won't accompany people who take them with them. (Other hadiths also refer to Muhammad's dislike of dogs.) The hadith about the girl is very clear: bells attract devils, so it is evil to wear them. This has nothing to do with dancing at all. Eagleswings 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Eagleswings but if you look again at the contexts of these hadiths there is nothing to support either of the interpretations you make. Both seem to me to be completely out on a limb and inconsistent with an encylopedic approach to historical sources. (See WP:RS on primary sources.) If you're not happy about the statement coming out, I suggest we go to an RFC on this one. Itsmejudith 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Not using hadiths directly was something Merzbow felt strongly about, as you'll see in his comments in this section. What I would lay most stress on is being consistent in the article. But I can definitely see what Merzbow meant. It is hard enough to summarise fairly the views of people writing in English in the 21st century. How can we summarise fairly the reported comments in Arabic of someone who lived more than 1400 years ago? Anyway, we agree, the point does not belong here.Itsmejudith 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Verifying Accuracy of Content~~
~~Marriage as slavery~~
~~Does anyone bother to check the views of polemicists with actual Muslim thoughts? Take this for instance:~~
"Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non-Muslim) may marry a Muslim woman.[110] Based on the Quranic verses 2:221, 60:10, and 5:5, the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband.As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave, and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "People of the Book" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.[111]"
As expected, this is from Bat Ye'or. All my life, I've never heard the relationship of marriage explained as comparable to slavery. Nor has the allegation that Muslims could marry women amongst 'people of the book' been explained in terms of slavery, at least by a Muslim. This is characteristic of Bat Ye'or's paranoia, where she sees every policy practiced by a Muslim as a reflection of their supremicist thinking and their disdain for others. We've established Bat Ye'or as a highly controversial writer, that much I think everyone agrees with. We've established that the highly credible scholars who are conscious of her work have critisized her and questioned her credibility as a historian. WP:V says that strong, possibly inflammatory claims need to be backed by strong sources. Bat Ye'or is clearly not a reliable source in that she collects and deciphers information with a certain statement in mind. It's difficult to assume good faith in some of the editors here (whom we know aren't so unintelligent as to miss this), when they refuse to critically review the truth to such statements. His Excellency... 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Actually it's not from Ye'or, the closest source cited is Friedmann (which I will attribute). And let's not start with the personal attacks again, shall we? - Merzbow 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~
But Merzbow, the slavery connection is such a non-sense that I personally can hardly assume good faith, no matter Ye'or wrote it or Friedmann. The policy asks us not to criticize persons but there is nothing wrong with calling their writings as utter absurdities. --Aminz 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not absurd to me that some Muslim scholars from 1000 years ago would have said that. He's not saying this was the consensus, he's saying that some said that. Friedmann is a Professor in the field and this comes from one of his books, so the source is impeccable. - Merzbow 01:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I wonder what does it have to do with this article. I can dig up the history and find more absurd things on the part of particular scholars which were never adopted by the mainstream Muslims. Why is it notable enough to be mentioned in Dhimmi article? --Aminz 02:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Friedmann explicitly mentions this reasoning as contributing to the prohibition in Islamic law to marriage of Muslim women to unbelievers: "The affinity between marriage and slavery is exemplified in the work of Ibn Hazm. As is well known, Islam forbids non-Muslims to own Muslim slaves and Ibn Hazm links this prohibition to the prohibition on giving Muslim women in marriage to unbelievers." You know I check sources carefully, Aminz. I wouldn't have kept this if the relevance to the article wasn't very explicit. - Merzbow 02:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This view on marriage contradicts every hadith and verse on the Quran on the matter. I've never heard the relationship of marriage compared to slavery. That contradicts everything Muhammad has said on the matter, and any of the Sahabahs. Did Friedmann find some chauvinist on the street and ascribe that belief to all of Islam? This shouldn't be here. The fact that the writer made the statement alone doesn't make it noteworthy, and I can't imagine there could be a consensus here for keeping that statement in the article. His Excellency... 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
~~So, we need to find a couple of other quotes to bring neutrality to this article. Friedmann's quote will be credited to himself. --Aminz 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Like what? An opinion from a scholar explicitly saying having a wife isn't like owning a slave? Such an outlandish allegation has never been entertained before, much less refuted. Isn't the inclusion of this allegation giving undue weight to what is a perspective on marriage by Muslims held by almost 0% of the Muslim population? Little surprise that it was Pecher who introduced this paragraph, claiming that it was 'consensus' that the reason for this difference was supremacy. "As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement." The line is framed as if it were a fact. His Excellency... 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I know it is utter non-sense, but it is well-sourced. I agree that "As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement." in over generalization. Who are those "some Muslim scholars"? If they are totally one or two, they have name. Only if there are a lot of them, Friedmann should have quoted them. I dunno. But on the other hand, I can see that Friedmann's quote is well sourced. I dunno. --Aminz 02:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've attributed this to Friedmann explicitly. And I just added the word 'some'. The book is viewable for free at Amazon, so anyone can verify this is an accurate reflection. Freidmann quotes about 5 different Muslim sources that support this view, including two hadith that directly attribute this view to Muhammad. - Merzbow 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That is actually a pretty bad misinterpretation on your part of Friedmann, who in turn doesn't do a good job here in conveying the message of his sources. Muhammad certainly makes no comparison of marriage to slavery, as you say. Friedmann cites Ibn Taimiyyah, who is using the rather extreme comparison of marriage to slavery to make his audience cautious as to whom they wed their daughters to. His use of the word 'enslavement' is metaphorical. This does not speak to how Islam generally percieve the institution of marriage, but the nature of marriage at the time. Ibn Taimiyyah in turn uses a hadith in which Muhammad encourages KINDNESS towards women ("fear Allah in relations with women because they suffer in your homes") since they are restricted to the homes of their husbands. Muhammad certainly didn't use the word 'slavery' or 'inslavement'. Friedmann's acknowleges this to be a "veiled criticism of the social inferiority of women". His Excellency... 03:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You are 100% wrong here. Here is the footnote on p. 162: "The idea that for the woman marriage is tantamount to enslavement is sometimes attributed to the Prophet himself, even when no difference in religion between the spouses is involved, see Sarakhsi, al-Mabsut, vol. 5, p. 23, l. 21: 'Marriage is enslavement; let every one of your weigh carefully where (i.e., with whom he places his daughter'." Nobody is claiming Muhammad advocates that marriage be slavery, just that he observed this. This may very well be "veiled criticism" of an unjust condition, but the fact that Friedmann mentions this only briefly in a footnote contradicts your claim that I am misinterpreting him.
And Friedmann is being quoted almost directly in his own words - from p. 162 "As some traditionalists have put it, marriage is a sort of enslavement, the husband is..." It's immaterial whether you agree with him or not; he's an unimpeachable source, he's being quoted almost word-for-word in context (if you want to quote him directly for half a page go ahead), and what he's saying is directly relevant. - Merzbow 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Does anybody knows how one can access Tafsir Ibn Khatir? Its website is no longer available online. I would like to see what this early commentator has to say. --Aminz 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
There's a trick - you can use the Google cache to access that website. But I think you need to know the full url first; perhaps if you don't, you can guess at what the url should be based on other examples and plug it into Google search and see if it finds a cache link. - Merzbow 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I have the Arabic version of most Tafsir books (if not all). Send me an email of what part that you need. --Islamic 05:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I don't have Lewis' '1984' book, so if someone could check the accuracy in how this is represented here:
The status of dhimmi "was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews" but ceased to be so after the rising power of Christendom and the radical ideas of the French revolution caused a wave of discontent among Christian dhimmis.^[7] While Muslims opposed abolishment of dhimma laws, continuing and growing pressure from the European powers and also pressure from Muslim reformers gradually relaxed the inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims.^[8] His Excellency... 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~H.E. I wrote this paragraph. What particular point do you think should be looked up? --Aminz 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Funny thing... According to Pact of Umar:~~
The Pact (Covenant) of Umar (c. 717 A.D.) is a treaty supposedly agreed between the eponymous second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab and the ahl al-kitab (اهل الكتاب) ("people of the Book") following the first Muslim conquests. These people, called dhimmis (ذمي), were granted various rights and protections in exchange for their acceptance of Muslim political and social domination. The Pact of Umar enumerates in detail many of the conditions of their subjugation, and served as a key foundational text in the legal elaboration of dhimmi status during the classical period of Islamic jurisprudence.
~~According to Umar ibn al-Khattab:~~
~~Umar ibn al-Khattāb (in Arabic, عمر بن الخطاب) (c. 581 – November 3, 644)...~~
For all the controversy this document has generated on the matter of Dhimmi/Dhimma and what not, you have to admit it's a pretty good document considering the man signed it 73 years after his own death. His Excellency... 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Will look it up soon. I need to run now! You can also easily check it in http://books.google.com/ The text is available there for free. --Aminz 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Thats a pretty good trick, i thought that the Pact of Umar was a cheap copy of some agreement by a Byzantine Emperor and various christian sects (as well as the Jews) but i'm not sure. I notice that the treaty is supposedly agreed, my question is, is this document actually refered to by any notable Jurists in thier legal opinions? As to the claims that marriage is a form of slavery that should have actual legal opinion as well if what Bat Ye'or says is true. The facts of who could marry whom due to thier religion should be noted but unproven polemics about WHY should not be part of the encyclopedia. Hypnosadist 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I was looking up some counter-logic on the 'marriage is slavery' bit..Fact is, 'why' shouldn't matter unless it's from a legal authority (and therefore historically relevant).. I'll edit accordingly. His Excellency... 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ye'or says commentators are unsure whether the pact was established by al-Khattab or his successor. The Wiki article Pact of Umar is just screwy. - Merzbow 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
From my recent reading, if and when restrictions were applied, jurists would go back to this text to justify them. I think we should deal with it properly near the beginning as a key source of the juridical status, but avoid repeatedly referring to it unless good secondary sources do so. This passage from Courbage and Fargues p24 puts it into perspective.
Umar had imposed these distinctive signs on the Christians to avoid them being confused with the Muslim soldiers when he had established a regular army, from which non-Muslims were excluded by statute. The building up of the state had been the reason for his measures, which quickly fell into oblivion. Their re-appearance in later years was nearly always during crises.
Itsmejudith 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Tafsir kosar says that although it is true that Muslim took their financial organization from persians(shoot, I can't translate exactly what they learnt from Sasanids: نظام مالى و دفتر و ديوان محاسباتى را از ايرانيان اقتباس كردند و از سالنامه هاى رسمى ايران ساسانى بهره جستند), but it is not true that Muslims learnt jizya from Iranians since Muhammad himself got jizya from the people of the book... --Aminz 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani, Taudhihul Masae'l~~
~~This reference needs to be improved - book, publisher, date, page number, web link...? - Merzbow 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Shia ritual~~
H.E.! welcome back!
The source says that those " And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such. " are kafir and thus are najis. If one doesn't deny it but just doesn't practice it (as is the case for many in iran), he/she will not be najis.
Also, in the last sentence of the section we have: "Opinions of modern Shi'a scholars range from Ruhollah Khomeini's view that all non-Muslims are unclean[121] to the position held by Fazel Lankarani that Jews and Christians are clean"
Sistani falls somewhere in this range. Do you think it is still necessary to mention him? --Aminz 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Marriage & Slavery~~
Okay. I found these. I think it clarifies the matter a bit:
Before discussing the Chastisement Passage in detail, I would like to make some general observations about the treatment of women and slaves in the Qur’an, two of the most downtrodden populations throughout history, including the time of the Prophet Muhammad. While the subject of slavery is now only of historical interest, the statements linking it to patriarchy and the mistreatment of women are startling in their clarity. They force us to recognize patriarchy as an institution which enslaves women, that is, an institution which is a variant of that of slavery.
The Qur’an and the Prophet repeatedly mentioned slaves and women in the same passages, exhorting Muslims to treat them well.60 In the case of slavery, the Qur’an recognized it only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination.61 The Prophet addressed it repeatedly by action and words. For example, ... On one occasion the Prophet stated that slaves are “your brothers under your control, feed them of hat you eat, dress them of what you wear, and do not charge them with tasks beyond their capabilities. If you do, then help them.”62 Finally, in his famous last speech, Khutbat al-Wadaa’, the Prophet emphasized that all believers, whether free or enslaved, were siblings, and that no Arab was better than a non-Arab except to the extent of one’s piety.63
In the same speech, the Prophet analogized the status of women in his society to that of powerless slaves, and he beseeched his male audience to treat them kindly , saying: “Be good to women; for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You took them in God’s trust, and legitimated your sexual relations with the Word of God, so come to your senses people, and hear my words....”.64 He also admonished them: “Let not one of you whip his wife like a slave, then have sexual intercourse with her at the end of the day.”65
Source : "An Islamic Perspective on Domestic Violence" By Azizah Y. al-Hibri, University of Richmond Law School. --Aminz 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
So, Azizah Y. al-Hibri believes that Muhammad was not describing an ideal picture for marriage but just describing the status of women in his society. --Aminz 05:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I never suspected Muhammad was stating an ideal, just what the current social situation was (and neither does Friedmann, who always said that it was Islamic scholars who made the leap from marriage as enslavement to the dhimmi law, not Muhammad). But that's a good source, thanks for adding it. - Merzbow 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Thanks. I think we still need a very short sentence summerizing the traditional Islamic view of marriage. --Aminz 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I've removed Hibri from the Marriage section. That lengthy quote would give the issue of marriage/slavery an undue wieght within the section and has nothing to do with dhimmis. This is not the place to discuss the Islamic view of marriage in all details, let's stick to the regulations on marriage that were applicable to dhimmis without traveling into murkier subjects. I understand that some people here want to correct the "negative" impression made by the marriage/slavery analogy; however, let's write based facts, not on impressions. Pecher ^Talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the edit history, and it appears it was you who introduced the 'marriage as slavery' content. This is how it read until I edited it:

Based on the Quranic verses 2:221, 60:10, and 5:5, the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband.As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave, and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "People of the Book" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.[111]

I've seen you here often enough to know you're aware of WP policies, and that you know the distinction between fact and opinion as defined in WP:V and WP:NPOV. You've framed the information you picked from Friedmann's book as fact when in fact it was an author's opinion based on sources he studied. This would be the third time you have been accused of misrepresenting a source. As has been the case with virtually every other contribution of yours to Wikipedia Islam related pages, this one promotes a certain arguement (Muslim marriage is slavery) and not a fact. I suggest you, or someone else or I, submit an RFC on the matter of this content. In addition to that, an RFC may be required on the issue of whether or not criticisms of the critics and their motivations is also warranted here in the interest of providing context. His Excellency... 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
'As some Muslims scholars put it' is almost exactly as Friedmann puts it. The improvement I made was to attribute it to Friedmann. The changes to this passage overall were minor, and Pecher was not misrepresenting the source. Please stop making hyperbolic accusations. - Merzbow 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored this section to the consensus version we reached a few days ago that Aminz and I hashed out. - Merzbow 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
May I ask people here to stop restoring al-Hibri? She is in no way qualified to speak about this subject, even if the point she makes were relevant to this section. In addition, please stop attributing to Friedmann the material from his book; these arguments are purely descriptive and in no way controversial or polemical. Pecher ^Talk 20:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Sagharoon~~
I don't doubt that this is useful information, but to say that a certain arabic word in the Qur'an corresponds to certain phrases in various translations without a cite is most definitely OR. Having done translation work on several foreign languages in the past (now forgotten), I know how tricky it can be. This paragraph definitely needs to be sourced. I will look in Maududi and Yusuf Ali tonight to see if they mention it. - Merzbow 16:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It was already referenced to Wehr. Aminz's addition is, to my mind, very helpful. It does mean, however, that the new section on sagharoon touches the same topic as the existing section on "humiliation". These should be reworked together, a potentially controversial task given that there was a lot of discussion on the "humiliation" paragraph, which I haven't read in its entirety. On the chronological principle, or on the principle of legal text first then its application, the old text from "humiliation" should be brought earlier to Aminz's "sagharoon" discussion.
Citing the Wehr dictionary still does not establish the fact. You're picking whatever trailing portion of the three translations you think correspond to sagharoon and claiming that's what each translator intended to correspond to sagharoon. I'm not disputing that this is probably right, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable to ask that all non-trivial speculations be sourced. - Merzbow 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I think a compromise would be to include the entire verse from each translator. It's not long. - Merzbow 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Done. Hopefully we can agree on this. - Merzbow 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I won't quibble now because the task of merging the two sections is more important and decisions taken in relation to that may override this one. And better overcautious with references than not cautious enough. Hope Aminz is also OK on this for the time being. Itsmejudith 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, it's not a huge deal (given that none of us actually disagree as to the facts of the matter), I just want to be extra-careful on this article especially because of the controversy it's generated. I think it's better to give the full verse anyway for context. BTW I did find an interlinear Quran online here, I'll add it as a reference. - Merzbow 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
~~It is fine for now. --Aminz 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Why has an edit war broken out?What is the disagreement with the etimology of sagharoon, if we need to add other peoples view of the meaning of this arabic word then they should be added as well.Hypnosadist 15:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Apes and pigs?~~
Hello all. Could we next turn our attention to the paragraph in the "humiliation" section mentioning "apes and pigs"? There are extremely strong claims being made here and the referencing as it currently stands is not good enough to support them. I haven't got the Stillman book or Bat Ye'or, which seem to be the major sources. Aminz, have you? Each sentence here should be referenced to its secondary source, probably with a "Stillman says" or whatever, rather than putting three sources at the end of the paragraph with no way of knowing what comes from where. If it's not possible to do this, to tie each sentence down to an author so a reader can judge how reliable the evidence is, then I propose simply deleting the paragraph. Itsmejudith 11:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
hi judith, the first word is Raya which means herd or flock according to my Arabic dictonary, it has come to mean serf by Ottaman Empire usage to refer to there non-muslim subjects(how nice!).Hypnosadist 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Does anyone know whether the connection between "raya" as herd or flock and "raya" as "serf" and/or "dhimmi" is drawn by Stillman at the reference cited? If it is, I suggest we add "Stillman argues that a word used to refer to non-Muslims originally meant ... ". Or is this idea only traceable back to a dictionary entry? This is even more problematic, since words change their meanings over time. I believe that Japanese men refer to their spouses with the formula "my stupid wife", which is considered polite(!), but that doesn't mean that all Japanese men think their wives are stupid.Itsmejudith 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Following this post I wanted to trace the Encyclopedia of Islam link. I can't consult either the online (subscription only) or paper versions immediately, maybe someone can paste the whole entry. But while looking I found the Encarta entry for Ottoman Empire. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553949/Ottoman_Empire.html This uses "raya" to mean the non-military ordinary (Muslim) citizens of the empire, quite separate from "dhimmi". It is worth looking at how this article discusses "dhimmi", too.Itsmejudith 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The change in meaning is what i was trying explain. The Original meaning is Herd or flock, and is still used as this and is a root of a lot of words concerning animal husbandry. At the time the ottomen empire starts to expand it calls the non-muslim that it has control over Raya (their herd). Its then used for several hundred years to refer to these people so that many modern translators just translate it as serf or subject but its pergoritive use is important. By the last years of the empire the word has moved to cover all poor/landless people including muslims(still derogatory). I read the encarta article searching for raya and it has some common inaccuracies, see the etimology of raya.Hypnosadist 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I get what you're saying now. First the word is used to refer to animal herds or flocks. Then the Ottomans (who were Turkish, not Arabic, speakers - this could be important) use it for non-Muslims. Then it comes to mean all poor people. But how can we be sure of how derogatory it was at any one time? In English it is derogatory to refer to people as a "herd", but we still do it - "herd instinct", "stand out from the herd". But some languages may have a word that refers to collections of people or animals without being derogatory. See the introduction to the Wikipedia community article (a dreadful article, where do you begin to improve it?). We can't include this point as relevant unless there is one, preferably more than one, good secondary source that sees it as relevant. Itsmejudith 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stillmen thinks its relivent, if i owned any bat ye'or et al i bet they do. I can't see any reason to think that refering to your social inferiors who you oppress through force as THE HERD is nice, if you can find a Reputable scholar to say that i might buy it. But not vauge it might not have been rude, thats more good faith anyone here ever gets, and i'm not about to give it to that empire.Hypnosadist 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a interesting link on the whole apes and pigs thing. http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4208&search=arlandson Hypnosadist 10:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

heres another from pakistan today weekly newspaper http://www.paktoday.com/wall2.htm Hypnosadist 10:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Pecher's reverts~~
Hi Pecher. The problem with the text you have restored is that although there are some sources given in the paragraphs, it is not clear what was said by which source. We should be more careful than this given the sensitivity of the subject. I will go through the whole text and add {{Fact}}. And since all the sources agree that it was usually difficult or impossible for non-Muslim men to marry Muslim women the "marriage is slavery" point adds nothing and should just go. Itsmejudith 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is unclear to you? Pecher ^Talk 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be crystal clear which statement comes from which author. If you could check that, and check that Stillman's views are faithfully summarised and not misrepresented in the article, it would be helpful, since I haven't got the Stillman book. As I said before, I have done an academic literature search and now have a 36-page document full of sources that could be relevant. I posted a few of the most likely-looking ones to Aminz's talk page so you can find them there. Ideally, we could have a division of labour to check these out and add points as appropriate. Aminz was up for that, Merzbow will be too, I guess, although it is all potentially very time-consuming. As you know, scholars are likely to disagree and for the sake of NPOV we need to represent both sides of the argument fairly.Itsmejudith 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
All references I've put are actually more than crystal clear. All you need to do is read a couple of sentences more to find out the reference to the preceding sentences. Pecher ^Talk 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Additionally, "scholars are likely to disagree" as not a logically valid argument for giving everyone a soapbox in a forum at least nominally intended as a repository of expertise. When truth and rubbish can be acertained, the rubbish has no right to representation.--Mike18xx 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Itsmejudith, sources should be clearly distinguishable from each other and easily attributable. (→Netscott) 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Every paragraph ends with a ref and most have more refs in the body. The attributions are clear, no need to put a ref after every sentence. --tickle me 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Seeing a sentence "two plus two equals four"<ref>Math textbook</ref>, people may ask: "ok, we know the reference for 'four', but where does the 'two plus two' come from?" Pecher ^Talk 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Do I detect humour here? If so, it's very welcome. However, even I am not going to insist on references half way through a sentence, so you need to cast your net wider for an analogy. And in fact I don't think it's necessary to have a reference for every sentence, just a reference for every point - but the way the article is written more or less every sentence makes a different point. Itsmejudith 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there are blocks of sentences and even entire paragraphs coming from the same source; in such cases, the reference should come at the end of the referenced portion of the text. Inserting the same reference after each of the two consecutive sentences looks silly. Pecher ^Talk 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Pecher. I've just seen your multiple reverts. A revert war is only going to waste everyone's time, so can we try to come to an agreement on some principles about how to handle this article? Although I added reasons for my changes and you have put yours, it is no substitute for discussion on the talk page. Perhaps we also need to think about a third opinion, mediation or some such, at a point well before discussion becomes heated. What do you think? Itsmejudith 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mediation was tried on this article and failed. The process was quite time- and energy-consuming, and I don't wish to go over it again. Reasonable people should be able to discuss things productively without help of third parties. I must note that your remark regarding reverts applies both ways: one editor's absence should not be interpreted as a license to do massive controversial changes to the article. Pecher ^Talk 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If mediation failed on this article, that was in different circumstances. I do agree that reasonable people should be able to discuss things productively. But surely "third parties" - as many good-faith contributors as possible - are always welcome on Wikipedia?
I'm genuinely sorry that you and I have got off to such a bad start in collaborating on this article. Maybe my first posts didn't take sufficient account of sensitivities. I also wonder whether you are getting a bit proprietorial about this article. I'm sure you do realise that I have as much right to edit it as you do, but your posts have not always given that impression. As to my remark regarding reverts, I think you have misunderstood. I am not accusing you of starting a revert war, far from it. But the changes I made were in the context of collaborative work between Aminz, Merzbow, Netscott, me, others. A spirit of consensus suddenly broke out, short-lived perhaps, but it was definitely there. Worth trying to rekindle it?Itsmejudith 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Can I take a minute again to explain what I mean in relation to citing sources clearly. It is OK by me when the article reads sentence (ref source A), sentence (ref source B), although it is a bit laboured. And OK if it says sentence, sentence, sentence (ref source A). What is a big problem is when it says sentence, sentence, sentence (refs source A, source B). Because then there is no way of telling which sentence comes from A and which from B. And it is very difficult to move text around in that case. (You know I have said I think the whole article needs restructuring and if you disagree I'd like to discuss.) It would also be difficult for the encyclopedia user who wanted to trace back a particular point to its source. Can we work collaboratively to clear this up in the sections where it is a problem? Thanks.Itsmejudith 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Andrew Wheatcroft~~
If Penguin Books page [11] is to be trusted, Wheatcroft teaches at the Department of English Studies. I didn't read his books, but they look like publicistics rather than scholarly research. He doesn't look like an authority on issues related to dhimmis. Pecher ^Talk 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
From his university webpage[12]: "Research interests: print culture; image and text in book publication, 16th to 19th centuries; Orientalism and western misapprehensions of the Middle East; the textual and graphic presentation of the Habsburg Empire; Cultural production from the library and the museum: the role of printed publications 1650-1914." This confrms the above argument: he is no authority on dhimmi matters. In addition, he is just a lecturer, which indicates his rather low academic standing. Pecher ^Talk 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Lecturer is not a low academic standing. He is Director of the Centre for Publishing Studies at Stirling. This book received very good reviews right across the serious UK press such as the Financial Times. If it was "publicistics", whatever that means, it would not have been published by Penguin (Viking in the US). There are also reviews in academic journals that I will find and cite for you. He is not writing specifically about dhimmis but about the conflict between Christianity and Islam.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here about academic standing. I remember that before you referred to history as "social science". Perhaps that is how it is generally regarded in the US. In the UK, it is regarded as humanities at least as much as social science. That is why there is a connection with literary studies and it is not regarded as inappropriate for specialists in literature to write history.Itsmejudith 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Specialists in literature may write whatever they wish, but that doesn't make them authorities on those matters. For instance, I may write something about the reproduction of kangaroos, but my work will not be citable on Wikipedia, since how kangaroos reproduce is outside of my area of expertise. Unless, of course, experts in that subject find my work to be of significant scholarly value; the latter does not seem to be the case with Wheatcroft. Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it does, because literary studies and history are close to each other, as I explained. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, a historian at Oxford, praised it in the Sunday Times. And A.C. Grayling, a professor of philosophy, praised it in the Financial Times. But if that doesn't impress, why not have a look at the reviews it had in peer-reviewed journals before deciding whether it is of significant scholarly value? The newspapers give us a clue, though. Itsmejudith 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
~~A professor of philosophy? That's telling. Pecher ^Talk 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I see no reason why a historian cannot give a positive review to a popular non-scholarly book on a historical subject. Such review, however, does not make this book citable on Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's amusing to see that you have such little regard for a British literary establishment that takes itself very seriously indeed. I don't agree with your characterisation of this book or its status as a potential source on Wikipedia, but I won't insist, since I have the advantage of you, having actually read the book. Rather than carry on arguing about this particular case, shall we agree a set of criteria for judging which sources to rely on in this article?Itsmejudith 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So far anything resembling a peer review is Fernandez-Armesto's praise in the Sunday Times and Grayling's review in the Financial Times. It would be helpful if you provided links or else nrs. of issue and pages. --tickle me 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Hello Tickle me. I've been carefully through WP:RS. There's a section for History, which I think we will agree applies here.~~
"Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards. Reputable history books and journal articles always include footnotes and bibliographies giving the sources used in great detail."
Penguin most definitely falls into the category of commercial houses that emulate the university press standards. It has some of the best historians writing for it. Wheatcroft's book is fully sourced - there are various sources I want to follow up when I have time. Plus he is in fact a historian. He has an M.A. in History from Cambridge and has also studied History at the University of Madrid (this is from Stirling University website, are we going to quibble about that as a reliable source? I hope not). Given that he has also worked in publishing, he crosses the boundaries between literary studies and history. Like I said, this is part of UK intellectual culture. Could Pecher expand on why it is "telling" that his book should be reviewed by a philosopher?Itsmejudith 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
~~A book by a non-expert reviewed by a non-expert; do you find many scholarly books reviewed by philosophers? Pecher ^Talk 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~~
The Financial Times, May 3, 2003 p30 The new crusade - for understanding Faith, some hope, but little charity? A.C. Grayling looks for light in the dark tale of relations between Christians and Moslems. A.C. Grayling. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2003 Financial Times Information Ltd. Information may not be copied or redistributed. Byline: A.C. GRAYLING The Cross and the Crescent: Christianity and Islam from Muhammed to the Reformation by Richard Fletcher Penguin Press £16.99, 183 pages Infidels: The Conflict between Christendom and Islam 638-2002 by Andrew Wheatcroft Viking £20, 443 pages
Grayling reviews the book alongside Fletcher, The Cross and the Crescent.
Sunday Times (London, England), May 4, 2003 p43 Struggle, what struggle?; History. (Features) Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2003 Sunday Times Byline: Felipe Fernandez-Armesto INFIDELS: The Conflict between Christendom and Islam, 638-2002 by Andrew Wheatcroft Viking Pounds 20 pp480
On re-reading this, I must say that Fernandez-Armesto is actually very critical of Wheatcroft – for giving too much emphasis to the conflict between the two religions and not enough to tolerance. His view gives much less space to the Bat Ye’or thesis than Wheatcroft’s does.Itsmejudith 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Sources~~
This note from WP Project History is relevant, I think.
"A search for "History" via google of wikipedia can give you a variety of articles that may be relevant. Alternatively, editors can search for "Timeline". These articles will almost certainly not be of a standard sufficient to write an encyclopedic article about a historical subject. The correct standard of material to generate encyclopedic entries about historical subjects are: 1. Peer reviewed journal articles from a journal of history 2. Monographs written by historians (BA Hons (Hist), MA, PhD) 3. Primary sources "
This seems to be what we need to work with. Personally, I think the category "historians" can be relaxed in certain circumstances. But never mind for now. The way forward for this article must be to extend the range of sources used. I will paste a list of peer reviewed journal articles that appear to be relevant. Some of them are available online (possibly subscription only). Incidentally, is there a reason why are we not currently drawing on the Bosworth book chapter that is listed in the references? Itsmejudith 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Vote against Yahiya Emerick as i've just read his biography of Muhammad with the classic line "Islam created many regulations that make slavery something of a burden on the owners" WTF.Hypnosadist 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Emerick doesn't meet the criteria as a good source because he's not a historian (from what I can see from the wikilink you kindly provided and from google). It's not down to whether or not we agree with his views on slavery or anything else. Itsmejudith 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Some stuff from Bosworth's article had been in the article for some time before it was removed due to considerations I cannot swiftly recall. I won't mind reinserting material from it. Pecher ^Talk 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Some progress, perhaps. We are now starting to agree a short list of authors who are OK as potential sources. (With the proviso that even if an author is OK in principle it doesn't mean that we can just add anything they say willy-nilly, since there also has to be balance.) This is my understanding of where we are so far. Lewis, Bosworth, Stillman, Courbage & Fargues. Wheatcroft - have I answered all the queries? And any objections to the late Albert Hourani (University of Oxford)? Please anyone comment on the list, suggest additions or deletions.Itsmejudith 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I checked out Al-Hibri and I can't see how she is not qualified to write on Islamic marriage. She is a lawyer, she is well academically qualified in philosophy, a relevant subject, she is a university professor and she has several relevant publications, including a chapter in an academic book with a good publishing house. In fact it looks like she is a leading authority in the field, unless you know of other academics who specialise in Islam and marriage. Itsmejudith 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
~~OK i'll say it first! Bat Ye'or? This is not a vote for or against!Hypnosadist 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)~~
OK, someone was going to say it. The arguments against are that she is not academically qualified and she has never worked as an academic. Also there is doubt about the publishing house that has handled most of her books, because it is based in so minor a university. This last point could potentially be investigated - I am not all that familiar with how you would judge a minor US university press - in the UK only the top universities bother to run their own presses. But the two first points on their own rule her out as a major source of historical evidence. She should still be mentioned as a notable minority view. Itsmejudith 07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should also be noted which of the citations are her opinions and which are translations that she is quoting. She did have many documents translated into english for the first time as i understand it but i don't own any of her work to check. As to educationally qualified, she has put in 30 years of study on her subject, i think that has to qualify like we give islamic jurists credit for thiers dispite not having western academic qualifications.Hypnosadist 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem here, like elsewhere where Bat Ye'or is discussed, is the lack of any specific disagreements between what she writes and what is written by other scholars. Giving her credit as a "notable minority view" in the absence of a "majority view" is illogical at best. Pecher ^Talk 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Victor Davis Hanson vote for!Hypnosadist 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)~~
An expert on ancient Greek warfare?Itsmejudith 07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
He is an expert in early democracy and also empire building, post 9/11 always a contempory commentator he started to specialise in dhimmitude and the war on terror as well. As a fellow of the Hoover Institute he is also politically notable, i do not know if he will be quoted but i wanted to see what people think. about him.Hypnosadist 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Edward Said?This is not a vote for or against!~~
Don't think he is quoted at the moment but he usually used as evidence against THE WEST for bias as to undermine legitamate criticism. He is noteable and educated but biased in my opinion and should be treated much like Bat Ye'or.Hypnosadist 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Edward Said never wrote anything scholarly on history, let alone on the subject of dhimmis. His contributions to the field are confined to personal attacks on Western historians. Pecher ^Talk 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~~To sum up where I think we are on consensus about appropriate sources.~~
For factual content we use in order of priority: 1. Articles in refereed journals plus Encyclopedia of Islam which should also be regarded as a highly reliable source. 2. Books (monographs) written by scholars (i.e. people who do original research using primary sources and also publish in refereed journals). Book authors to be used for factual content will almost certainly be Arabic speakers. We do not use primary sources directly because of the difficulty of interpreting them but can mention them when our secondary sources do.
Facts from articles in refereed journals by any author can be included in principle subject to relevance and balance. Book authors can be much more contentious and we need to come to consensus about which ones to include. Book authors that we all agree can be used for factual content include so far: Lewis, Bosworth, Stillman, Courbage & Fargues, Hourani (if relevant material), Friedmann (I expect). We treat these factual sources with due respect. We summarise fairly and do not take a fact that the author has quoted for one purpose and then use it for another.
The bare facts must be linked together by a small amount of explanation, otherwise the article will not read well and will be meaningless to non-specialist readers. In doing so we avoid all POV and weasel words and take care not to give undue weight to minority views.
Again to do this we give priority to articles in refereed journals, but we also have to look at a wide range of books and reflect the range of views we find. Book authors who can be consulted (= consulted) for this purpose include the above plus so far mentioned Wheatcroft, Victor Davis Hanson, Bat Ye'or, Edward Said and anyone else remotely relevant. Itsmejudith 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Current use~~
I'm not a proffessor but shouln't the current use of the word be mentioned in an encyclopedia? And why is the text full of arabic words I can't understand, it is an English encyclopedia. Thank you very much if somebody could do something about these two ommissions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006
~~I reverted your edit. Dhimmitude is covered in that article. --Ezeu 04:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Blanking of sourced material~~
~~Kindly do not remove sourced and referenced material. Kindly do not do that w/ a misleading edit summary. -- Szvest 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}~~
What "sourced and referenced material" are you talking about? My edit summary was very clear. Pecher ^Talk 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Have a look...The exact referenced material removed. The above question is very weird.
</ref> This practice, however, stood in direct defiance of the sunnah of Prophet Muhammed who was known to stand respectfully for the biers of non-Muslims. ^[9]

</ref> Al-Nawawi's views, however, are considered to be overly harsh, and in some cases un-Islamic. In a hadith found in the collection of Abu Dawud, the Prophet Muhammed said, "One who wrongfully takes an extra tax (sahib maks) will not enter Paradise." ^[10]

Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non-Muslim) may marry a Muslim woman.^[11] According to Friedmann, Islamic law regarding mixed marriages developed out of three Quranic verses - ^{[Quran 2:221]}, ^{[Quran 60:10]}, and ^[Quran 5:5]. As some early Muslim scholars put it, Friedmann relates, such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. Friedmann also claims that some traditionalists compare marriage to enslavement and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives; conversely, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "People of the Book" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.^[12] Azizah Y. al-Hibri states that the relevant hadith regarding marriage and slavery are just drawing an analogy between the status of women in Muhammad's society to that of powerless slaves and are beseeching the male audience to treat them kindly: "Be good to women; for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You took them in God’s trust, and legitimated your sexual relations with the Word of God, so come to your senses people, and hear my words...." ^[13] -- Szvest 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Do you mind actually reading the discussion before popping up with accusations and reverts? The hadith are primary sources, and making inferences from them is original research; the issues of the marriage section are also discussed above. Frankly, Fayssal, you're the last person I would have expected this sort of editing from. Pecher ^Talk 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Every article includes sourced material be it a counter argument or not Pecher. Removing sourced material is considered vandalism. You are so experienced to not to know this. -- Szvest 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What about reading WP:VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."? As explained above, I have removed original research; doing so is compulsory for all editors. Pecher ^Talk 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you have to disagree w/ something clear to you Pecher? In other words, do you mean that the same referenced material above are considered OR? You could rephrase them of course but not remove the sources. Cheers -- Szvest 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What is "the same referenced material above"? Original research must be not rephrased, but summarily removed. Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I thought the standing agrement was that Hadith were not used, only what a notable source said about the hadith and which one it was, am i wrong?Hypnosadist 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)~~
You're right, we need to be absolutely consistent with how early texts are used. That's why I think we need to pull together near the beginning of the article a thorough discussion of ALL the early texts that might have a bearing. Qur'an, hadiths, Pact of Umar, etc.Itsmejudith 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"Removing sourced material is considered vandalism": Removing sourced material is wholly legitimate if the content is unrelated to the article (or section, paragraph in question) and/or inferences are drawn upon it by the editor. Pecher's point is clear: Szvest is introducing OR by inferring on primary sources - and mapping them to usc.edu doesn't help. So far -and in the case given- usc.edu is an semi-authoritative repository for primary sources, nothing more. "Every article includes sourced material be it a counter argument or not": most articles do, all should - indeed. However, sources used as counter argument have to be secondary or at best tertiary ones - editors using primary sources for that purpose are engaging in OR.
Szvest, your argumentation above is bewildering and misleading. Also, you're abusing admin powers by threatening Pecher on his talk page, while you should refrain from introducing OR and, implicitely, POV to the article instead. "Fayssal, you're the last person I would have expected this sort of editing": indeed, and not only what edits are referred. Don't threaten users with blocks to support your controversial edits. Ask for mediation or let other admins handle this. "You are so experienced to not to know this": that's uncivil considering your conduct. --tickle me 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Sikhs~~
Please cite a source indicating that Sikhs were included in the category of "Peoples of the Book". Bat Ye'or, the source used for the citation, does not, as far as I know, include them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Yes this source needs to checked as i can't find refernce to sikhs as people of the book hence deserve dhimmi status.Hypnosadist 12:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Can someone who has access to the Bat Ye'or book check what she says and what her reference is in turn for the inclusion of Hindus. There is an extensive academic literature on the Moguls and I'm sure we can find a range of sources that discuss the position of both Hindus and Sikhs. I can't imagine that these two faiths were treated very differently given their common heritage. Itsmejudith 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or says that Hindus were given the dhimmi status "out of necessity". She doesn't cover the issue of Sikhs, so including them into that sourced sentence was original research. Pecher ^Talk 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Aren't we getting a bit paranoid about OR? It's an important policy, but on exactly the same level as NPOV. "Sikhs" could be left in with a {{Fact}} tag and then anyone who comes across the page might be able to find a reference. I can't see what Bat Ye'or would mean by "out of necessity". The areas conquered by the Mughals included both Hindus and Sikhs - perhaps she simply left out the Sikhs because she thought it would be understood that they were treated the same. What are her references for the Mughal period?Itsmejudith 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
~~WP:NOR is just as non-negotiable as WP:NPOV. Pecher ^Talk 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Yes, as I said. Itsmejudith 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Sikhs have NEVER EVER been concidered people of the book FULL STOP. Mughal rulers were evntually forced through constant revolts to give more rights to Hindu's, they justified the policy u-turn by saying we are going to give Hindu's the same rights as thier other subjects under dhimmi laws. The Sikh refence must go as it is just WRONG.Hypnosadist 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Thanks for this. Where did you get this information from?Itsmejudith 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
The editorial i gave above is mine about a vast area of human history (due to time and number of people) to explain what Bat Ye'or would mean by "out of necessity". My point this is a purely political change brought on by violence with justification for the u-turn provided by pet theologians. Hindus are given dhimmi like status not dhimmi status, the first is practical politics the second is a deffinition based on if you follow a prophet of the Abrahamic tradition (any not just abraham and jesus). Sikhs had not killed enough people to get more rights for themselves by the time of the arrival of the British Empire, who treated everyone equally as badly(this was step up for the sikhs who were the bottom of the pile before). I'll try to think of a good book for you judith.Hypnosadist 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Ritual purity~~
We have sourced material relating to Sunni and Shi'a Islam simultaneously, and some relating just to Shi'a. They don't reveal major differences so can be treated in the same section. The article doesn't otherwise distinguish the two and to deal with just Shi'a on this issue would be unbalanced. Itsmejudith 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree again judith, all forms of Islam including sufism have ritual purity concepts, as broad a range of views as size allows should be covered.Hypnosadist 12:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A bit of an offtopic. The arabic word used for 'ritual purity' is 'paak'. Now, even a Muslim is not 'paak' unless he performs the necessary ablution (wudu). There's a difference between 'not being ritually clean', and being considered 'ritually dirty' (word used for this is Najis). The saliva of a dog is considered najis, for example; if a Muslim who has performed ablution touches that saliva, his wudu will be nullified. It's important to consider this difference when interpreting sources - I doubt Bat Ye'or would.His Excellency... 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, I don't see any sourced material dealing with both Sunnis and Shi'as on matters of ritual purity. If Wheatcroft's quote is what you mean, Judith, then read it carefully, please; there is nothing in the quote about ritual purity. Pecher ^Talk 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That Wheatcroft's stance applies to the Shia (or any) concept of ritual purity is OR so far, please show where he draws that conclusion. Without Wheatcroft's general assertions the section deals with Shia exclusively, which the section's title should reflect appropriately. Please add germane information if you feel that Sunni concepts should be dealt with too, which is reasonable - I concur with Hypnosadist. --tickle me 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy if the whole section was out for the time being, because to tell the truth, none of us knows the least thing about the topic. The distinction H.E. makes seems to me to be crucial and we should track down good secondary sources for it and include it. Wheatcroft is trying to explain why Muslims held Christians at arm's length and vice versa (in an Al-Andalus context, therefore Sunnis). Putting things in context and trying to explain is encyclopedic, I think, but it has to be reconciled with the "facts, facts, facts" approach. We may need to get other opinions on how to deal with this dichotomy. Wheatcroft draws on Mary Douglas 'Purity and Danger', a key text in social anthropology, which we could go back to if necessary.Itsmejudith 08:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"None of us knows the least thing about the topic". Really? Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter because thankfully, we have sources that discuss this issue. So far , you have failed to produce of quote from Wheatcroft demonstrating that in Sunni Islam non-Muslims are ritually unclean, najis. Avoiding contact is one thing, ritual purity is something different. Pecher ^Talk 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
True, Wheatcroft doesn't say that in Sunni Islam non-Muslims are najis and that he is talking in more general terms about avoiding contact. I haven't made any claims otherwise and haven't "failed to produce" anything. Sorry to disappoint you. Itsmejudith 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Then why did you insert Wheatcroft's quote into the section on Shi'a ritual purity and why did you remove the word Shi'a from the section title? Pecher ^Talk 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I hope my recent edit has addressed the disputed points. --Aminz 23:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Excellent edit!Hypnosadist 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks Hypnosadist. --Aminz 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Peer-reviewed articles~~
I mentioned before that I have been searching for further rock-solid sources for this article. I have done a search on the ISI Web of Knowledge database, which is one of the best-known databases of academic papers. I searched for dhimm*, i.e. any word beginning "dhimm". This yielded 30 items. However, most of these are reviews of Bat Ye'or's books. Of interest in the discussion of whether she is a valid source or not, but not prime sources for this article. Five items were articles in peer reviewed journals. To remind people: journal articles are the first choice of source, books come after, and primary sources only after that. None of the articles had an abstract attached.
Suggested next tasks:
Track down these articles

Search for other relevant articles by these authors

Search for other relevant articles in these journals

Expand the search by using different search words, e.g "Muslim AND Non-Muslim", but this yields an unwieldy number of results.
Any comments on this approach are very welcome.
Amichou, L., 2000, ‘What is a dhimmi? (Non-Muslim persons of a Muslim country who do not serve in the military, but pay taxes, jizya)’, Histoire, No. 243, May, p44. ISSN: 01822411 This article is in French. It is only one page long.
Al-Qattan, N., 1999, ‘Dhimmis in the Muslim court: Legal autonomy and religious discrimination’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3. Aug., pp429-444. ISSN 00207438 ISSN 14716380
Weigert, G., 1998, ‘A note on the muhtasib and ahl-al-dhimma’,Islam-Zeitschrift fur Geschichte und Kultur des Islamischen Orients, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp331-337. In English. ISSN 00211818
Rose, R.B., 1982, ‘Islam and the Development of Personal Status Laws among Christian Dhimmis – Motives, Sources, Consequences’, Muslim World, Vol. 72, No. 3-4, pp159-179. ISSN 00274909
Bosworth, C.E., 1972, ‘Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries in Mamluk Egypt and Syria - Qalaqshandis Information on their Hierarchy, Titulature, and Appointment (II) .3. Documents Given by Qalaqshandi on Appointment of Heads of Dhimmis’, International Journal of Middle East Studies. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp199-216.
Itsmejudith 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your work.Hypnosadist 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Judith, on your hard work on this article. Just one remark: quite a long time ago, looking for references to this issue in the couple of books on early Islamic history I had to hand at the time, I found few if any references to 'dhimma' or 'dhimmi' as such; the books were both published a while before, and the term seems to enjoy much more popularity these days. By contrast, I found references to 'jizya' which pointed me to relevant information. Looking for works dealing with 'jizya', 'christians+Islam' or 'Jews+Islam' might throw up results that your search didn't uncover. Palmiro | Talk 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Helpful, thanks. You're right, I am finding a lot of stuff on jizya. Courbage & Fargues have some very interesting passages that I will summarise when I have time and feed into the jizya article. When that article is better then some material should come out of this one. (Including the section on "humiliation" I sincerely hope.) "Christians+Islam", "Jews+Islam" I shall try but fear that each may yield thousands of results. "Non-Muslims" may be more manageable. And one good article includes references to others, so eventually we can get the compass of the literature.Itsmejudith 14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Crone has some information on it on about page 370 of God's Rule: Government and Islam (ISBN 0231132913). Empire and Elites After the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia may have some good case specific information. Page 33 footnote mentions a specific contract from the region. But, I think Crone is a relevant source in all of this if she is treated well. That is, read around the quotes or whatever is used... she is easy to take out of context. gren グレン 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
~~source on modern dhimmi~~
Fond this http://www.moia.gov.bh/alhedaya_files/309/alhedaya309en.pdf a magazine put out by the Bahrain ministry of islamic affairs saving it for modern dhimmi section.Hypnosadist 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Welcome to new editor(s)~~
Hello Levito and welcome to this page. I'm afraid that people editing this article - myself included - are often too busy to remember to be nice to newcomers. I'm sorry that your first edit was reverted. I think this happened because there was a reference - possibly two - for the paragraph you deleted. I have googled for more information on the issue and I have learnt that it is controversial and complicated, no more than that. What is needed is one or more statements from either a paper in a refereed journal, or failing that, a book by a historian, to explain what Maimonides' situation was. If historians disagree then we present both views.
At the same time, a belated welcome to Islami, not sure if you are new. You also had edits reverted. Same principles about sources apply to your edits too.
Please feel free to raise any issue about the article whatsoever on this talk page - if you do so before editing your edits are perhaps a little less likely to be reverted.Itsmejudith 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes welcome to all the new editors.Hypnosadist 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah i stated my reasons in your talk page bro, im not sure how to post things properly n these discussion pages, my reasoning is pretty clear and factual. all historical documentation of Maimonides converting to Islam in our times stem fro Graetz' "History of the Jews". this was one of the only sources on jewish history available to western academicians for a long time and therefore this falsehood has become widespread. every single instance that you can find of this idea in existence will be traced directly back to Graetz and no further than that as he is the one who reintroduced this slander on Maimonides. Generally speaking i've heard, and from what ive read of it, The History of the Jews is generally ok, however in regards to this one matter i can speak with some manner of authority having learned directly from the mouth of an expert on Maimonides writings. When i say expert i mean knowing the full scope of his writings nearly by heart along with the events of his life, being able to trace the first appearance of this slander to an enemy that Maimonides made in Fes. No one took this seriously up untill Graetz recorded it in his well known works, and from there it was referenced by numerous scholars who were unaware of the history behind it, merely taking Graetz at his word. so thats pretty much that, and i guarantee that in any historical work that makes reference to Maimonides supposed conversion all references will, whether directly or one or twice removed, inevitably trace back to Graetz and nowhere else.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Levito (talk • contribs)
~~Sorry, that's your original research. Lewis does not trace this material to Graetz. Pecher ^Talk 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Hahahahaha. sorry? The source for lewis here is listed at 1984... Grzetz' history of the Jews was written in 1898, did it occur to you that lewis was referencing a middle man? if he doesnt trace it to Graetz where does he trace it to then? couldnt you have listen THAT source and then traced that? Sorry thats your original oversight lol.
The rule about original research applies to the content of the article, not to arguments on the talk page. Looking back at books and articles to trace back the connections and origins of statements is not OR. It is source research, which Wikipedia strongly approves of. Pecher, you've got Lewis's book, just have a look and tell us what his reference is for the Maimonides point. Or Aminz can do it. All I can find searching academic journals is that "little is known of his life". And it seems there is no very good biography (what a pity - there is a massive amount written about his philosophy though). Maimonides' case is only mentioned here as an example, so unless the facts are certain it should be left out. Also, let's all try and keep our language moderate. Using block capitals is SHOUTING. Levito, since you seem to be staying around, it would be good if you had a user page and signed your contributions. Ask if you need a hand to sort this. Itsmejudith 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was mistaken. There is a scholarly biography of Maimonides. Herbert A Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Life, Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 019517321X. If this book does not confirm Lewis's contention, or if it sheds doubt, or regards the issue as more complex than previous historians have done, then the point can't stay. Because all agree that Lewis is a good scholar, but this book is a) from a scholarly press b) more recent c) specifically about Maimonides and d) thoroughly researched from original evidence. Personally, I think the point should stay out until this source has been checked out because it is not essential to the main line of argument. Itsmejudith 22:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case, it might be a good idea for you to provide quotes from Davidson's book on the issue of Maimonides's conversion. Otherwise, your contention sounds too vague. Pecher ^Talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Gentile~~
Pecher, why do you think there's no connection between this concept and that of dhimmi? Both are historical terms referring to relationships between ethnic majorities/minorities. Itsmejudith 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you supply a reliable source making this connection? Pecher ^Talk 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not got one to hand. And not got one for the link between solar power and 1973 oil crisis but one page references the other. Are you really saying a reliable source is needed for "See also"?Itsmejudith 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if people disagree, it doesn't hurt to back up your arguments by something. You're supporting Irishpunktom's pretty weird claim that there is a certain relationship between these two concepts, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Pecher ^Talk 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The link is they are names for people of a different religion, what i believe Pecher is complaining about is that Gentile has no implication of domination and hence why he does not want it added.Hypnosadist 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's just a corollary of ideas going back to Theodor Nöldeke. Islam's roots are in Judaism, Christianity, etc. that's basically the academic argument... because... most academics don't believe it was revelation. I don't know who mentions it explicitly... but ideas of religious inclusionism are pretty pervasive. gren グレン 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how we disagree. Both are terms that were used in the days before modern states and citizenship laws to refer to religious minorities who fell outside the scope of the religion-based law and so had to have their outsider status defined. At least that's what this whole article takes X number of words to say about the Dhimmi. Doesn't gentile have a similar sense? I think it does in the New Testament, which I was force-fed at school, anyway. Itsmejudith 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere near close in my view. Gentile refers to non-jews even in majority non-jewish countries, but dhimmi only refers to non-muslim subjects of a muslim government implimenting many interpritations of sharia law. Yes gentile is derogatory by separation of the world into jew and not, but the Legal and Religious nature of dhimmi is pretty unique. PS as the new testament you where given was probably 3 of 4 language translation starting at arimahic going through greek and or latin we would need a good source to say what the word writen in your bible as gentile was. It could be literally gentile or just non-jew or something very rude we would not know.Hypnosadist 22:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's a hard comparison because the jurisprudence / theology behind these is greatly contextual... and there was not a great center of Jewish power in well documented times. So, there is that difference which (and I'm not sure) probably means that gentile didn't have to have such specific formulations as dhimma law did. Being in power has a great deal of influence on how law is formulated. They are related ideas of the regulation of otherness but their contexts differ a bunch. It is comparable but it has different implementation because of those power issues. It's also not a right answer or a wrong answer. It's issues of using the words towards whatever ends... and since dhimma is political there is a degree that it's trying to say "the Jews did what we did"... as seen with this article. That doesn't make it wrong though. It just means that we'll never agree on it... gren グレン 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I have not that much of a problem with it being added to the see also, but i do feel it is there for the reason you gave gren.Hypnosadist 23:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)~~
The Jews never did what the muslims did. Islam wasnt born out of Judaism as much as it was born out of the Arabic people. The Hebrew word for Gentile is usually "Goy" meaning "nation" in other words of a different nation. A goy could become a resident of Israel as long as he agreed to give up idol worship and abide by general ethical laws. He could own land, run a business, and not have to wear special clothing, or pay special taxes. He lived completely unmolested as long as he was not an idol worshipper. The reason for this is that judaism was never particularly interested in converting everyone else and therefore didnt need to impose unpleasant circumstances on non-adherents. Truthfully "goy" or Gentile, isnt a derogatory word anymore than policemen, or engineer, or musician are derogatory, it just indicates a difference in the role of the individual. Jews do their thing, non-Jews do their thing.
~~-Levito-~~
~~See also~~
~~Why do we have Pagan and Kafir in the see also list? --Aminz 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~I'd rather have pagan, kafir and gentile than just gentile as links to other derogatory names for groups of OTHERS.Hypnosadist 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Oh, I see! Yes, these are "links to other derogatory names for groups of OTHERS." Got it. --Aminz 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily derogatory. "Dhimmi" isn't derogatory in essense, though contemporary thinkers might consider the idea insulting. The concept of 'the other' in diffrent religions. Itsmejudith gave a pretty simple explanation for having this here. His Excellency... 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding breeder to round out this rainbow group of OTHERNESS.Hypnosadist 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Kafir is absolutely necessary insofar as it is a more general islamic legal concept than "dhimmi". Pagan, however, does not seem to belong. Pecher ^Talk 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Kafir is relevant. --Aminz 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree kafir is relivent, gentile is not due to etimology.Hypnosadist 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Gentile, again~~
~~The insistence on putting Gentile as a related topic to dhimmi is bizarre and remains unexplained. The semantic similarity is superficial, and the differences are decisive:~~
"Gentile" is not a Jewish construct, but a derivation from an old English word, meaning "of the same clan."

The Hebrew word "goy" means, as has been pointed out here, simply "nation," and is in fact used to refer to Jews themselves

In Judaism, there is an imperative to treat non-Jews with justice ("for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt") - there is no notion of groups of people who need "protection," since justice is universal.
~~The insistence on this reference borders on vandalism. It serves no constructive purpose, and the motivations on insisting on it are suspicious. --Leifern 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Leifern, if one looks into Jewish legal theories of the middle ages, there ARE differences between how Jews feel Jewish members and Gentiles should be treated. One example is on slavery [13] where a Jewish slave enjoys rights that a foreign slave wouldnt. The legal differences between the terms are significant. The King James Bible uses the word gentile in the Old Testament, and "Jewish Encyclopedia" has quite an extensive article on "Gentile" and I imagine the RSV Bible would as well. If a word is to be listed here, it should be the english one and not the Hebrew, regardless of the origins of the word. In the context of Jewish Encyclopedia and the Bible, "Gentile" is a significant term of legal relevance. Here's an example from Jewish Encyclopedia on "War":
The accounts of wars in the patriarchal period show that the conquered peoples were reduced to captivity and their property was taken as spoils of war. In the case of the Shechemites, all the males were massacred by the sons of Jacob, while the women and children and all their possessions were carried off as booty (Gen. xxxiv. 25-29). Later, according to a document belonging to D (Deut. xx. 10-17), the Hebrews were commanded to make a wide distinction between the inhabitants of the land whom they were to replace and the Gentiles outside the land. Mildness was to be shown the latter in case they surrendered without fighting and submitted to pay tribute. If they were subdued by force of arms, however, every man was to be slain, while the women, children, cattle, and all else should belong to the victors. Far different was to be the treatment of the inhabitants of the land, who were to be slaughtered without exception, not even the cattle being left alive.
~~Certainly the term "Gentile" shows similarities to the Islamic distinction of Dhimmis. His Excellency... 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)~~

Someone keeps reverting in Gentile. It may well be that kafir, etc. don't belong either, but Gentile definitely doesn't. I'll give this a bit more time but will delete Gentile unless a good explanation is offered. --Leifern 20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Kafir belongs there, as discussed above. Pecher ^Talk 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Goy would be more appropriate than gentile due to the fact is a hebrew word in the torah you mention above H.E..Hypnosadist 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The gentile page does explain fully that the English word is a translation of goy, plus many other facts. Leifern, you have had some serious explanations from people who think the link is relevant. You should address directly the points we make and say why you disagree before there is any more reverting. Also, I suggest that people who are unhappy with the link to Gentile should concentrate on improving that page and its referencing. If pages are NPOV then can it be POV to link between them? Pagan is a highly relevant link because the term has been used to refer to non-Muslims who were not People of the Book, a distinction raised in this article on which a reader might look for more information.Itsmejudith 13:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
to "his excellency"... unfortunately the Bible is not sufficient as either a historical or legal document for purposes of citing evidence as to how the Jews actually did things at any time. The Bible serves as sort of a master outline of legal concepts and an extremely terse historical overview that emphasizes particular events in order to illustrate a general state of affairs while rebuking the actions of even the smallest minorities in terms of the entire people. Unfortunately for us all you do not have the proper perspective to understand these things. That the "shechemite wars" (the destruction of Shechem is much more accurate as no war was actually fought there) were undertaken as a response to a crime perpetrated by the shechemites in which two members of Jacobs family acted without his knowledge should lend a renegade flavor to the entire incident. Furthermore there were no "jews" at this time nor had the Torah been given yet therefore it is further removed from Israelite culture and legal theory, and so is every example that can be cited regarding the "patriarchal period". Therefore this is completely irrelevant to discussing Jewish legal attitudes towards non jews as it exists completely outside of the corpus of Jewish law. A further problem is that you mention "jewish legal theories of the middle ages" vaguely but you havent listed the source, nor have we determined if that source is accepted as correct, nor have we attempted t make sense of the source in its original language and in its proper context. If you were a lawyer youd never get away with such a thing in court, and you are dealing with the most complex legal system ever seen by mankind. The entire legislation dealing with the treatment of slaves were dealt with and fully devloped long before the middle ages ever set in, and therefore i am extremely concerned about the accuracy of the source you are pulling this from. Tell you what if you can name 4 jewish legal sources of the middle ages without doing a google search then maybe you would be qualified to speak on this subject. You menton that there is a legal difference between a hebrew slave and a non-hebrew one? That is true, however in this case the similarities are what is telling. A slave whether jew or non-jew, male or female, ate at the same table as the home owner, he slept in his home his needs were provided for and he was not to be physically abused except for the purposes of discipline when necessary. Another matter is that a non-jewish slave, when freed, would become a full-fledged Jew with all rights and responsibilities of a jew. They also had numerous religious obligations while they were slaves. To sum this argument up and to try and put your speculations into a TRUE historical perspective the Talmud says: "a man should free his slave and give his daughter to him in marriage". This is not the attitude that the powerful have towards the non-powerful, this isnt abuse and domination like the ignorant imagine things to be. Unfortunately most people dont know these things, so every yahoo can read a bible in english and do a 30 second web search and imagine that they know enough to open their mouths on a given subject.
Levito there is no good type of slavery i don't accept that kind of BS when muslims say islamic slavery is nice and i'm not having it said about slavery under the rule of the Torah.Hypnosadist 13:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
i never said it was good, its a shameful thing that a man loses his freedom, but im saying that the jews were by no means as barbarous as other cultures were in their institutions of slavery, and also much more civil and tolerant to non-jewish non-slave cultures living in israel. im sorry that you made an assumption that led to a mistake. Here's a good oppurtunity for a summary, jewish and non-jewish slaves were second class citizens. Non-Jews by contrast were not second-class citizens, however they werent citizens at all. If someone doesnt like that take it up with the greeks and romans also. Point is The jews werent mean to non-jews who lived in israel and agreed to abide by Torah laws for non-jews. If they refused, and then refused to leave... they died. funny thing is that the jews didnt even have the heart to go through with that and had all kinds of problems as a result. so there. Slavery sucks, you're right, but if you have to be a slave try to be one in a jewish house.
Prove it! More civil and tolerant! Bollocks! i repeat again Levito there is no good type of slavery jewish slavery wasn't better than Roman, British or Islamic slavery.Hypnosadist 13:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
umm, ok right back at you... yes it was. I just gave soem proof right up there for you. Frankly i have better things to do than attempt to educate someone who clearly doesnt want to believe my side of it anyway. As far as im concerned i dont care what you believe, im just recording the facts here so that other individuals who are genuinely looking for information can benefit from them. As for you im sure you have all kinds of reasons to believe that the Jews were just as barbarous as everyone else in this regard, well thats fine i hope it works out for you, but you never provided a single shred of evidence to substantiate your position, whereas if you read my above entries you see at least some hard evidence and other ideas which are based on the background of jewish legal method, and background on how the bible functions as a historical/judicial dosument. I have proofs, all you have are denials. IM sorry that these ideas make you uncomfortable. Im sorry that they make you so uncomfortable that you feel the need to deny them. I dont know why you are in denial about this idea, maybe you were a slave in a past life or soemthing. If you were, i hope you were a jewish slave and not a greek one, cause the jews were nicer to their slaves generally than other peoples were as ive discussed above. But you are right it does suck to be a slave, id rather be a free man myself but if financial matters forced me into slavery, which is how it worked back then, id rather be a slave to a jew cause i know that chances are he's be a bit nicer to me than some other guy. Does that still bother you?
Yes but that is beside the point, H.E. i've changed my vote, Goy and gentile should be in this article.Hypnosadist 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
~~which shows how much your vote is worth in the first place. impartial academicians ROFL.~~
Actually after your discriptions of jewish slavery i changed my mind from still undecided to a definite vote for gentile, thats called listening to evidence.Hypnosadist 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS you have yet to provide any evidence that being a slave of early jewish culture was any better than anyone else.Hypnosadist 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No its called not being able to maintain a train of thought. How my statements about the relatively humane nature of jewish slavery would lead you to change your mind about the derrogatory nature of the word Goy or Gentile, and decide that IT IS DERROGATORY, completely escapes me and im sure it would escape just about everyone else. Listening to evidence lol. So you want MORE proof? ok heres a little more...
off the top of my head without sources. Compare and contrast my previous paragraphs with the american institution of slavery and what is well known in regards to it. In roman times it was true that some slaves were treated well others were worked in the harshest conditions with no days off. Furthermore in roman times slaves were auctioned off en masse thus giving a further indication as to the attitudes that the Romans viewed other people with, and examine the Greeks who maintained a type of caste system between freemen and helots most notably in Sparta. The closest thing that Jewish slavery can be compared to is temporary indentured servitude, it was almost always a temporary arrangement, and when a non-jewish slave was freed he instantly became a jew. where is there any example of this in any other culture? there isnt, if we were to examine other cultures in detail we would see that inevitably their slavery institutions dehumanised the slave almost without fail by relagating him completely into the bounds of property. while it is probable that some romans were nicer than others, and some romans were nicer than some jews were, my point is that the system that was legislated at the time of the israelite kingdom was far more progressive than anything yet seen in the world, and far more humane than virtually every other culture that ever came after it untill the relatively recent abolition of slavery in the western world. those are a few more pieces of evidence and my overall argument, if im wasting my time trying to defend a position that you will not even consider than just tell me and I'LL STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH YOU. if you would rather not clutter this page up anymore than we already have we can continue this on msn or something like it.
but please dont pretend to be examining evidence and making impartial academic decisions based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of a given position. The only one you are fooling here is yourself.
~~It was these lines of yours:~~
~~Here's a good oppurtunity for a summary, jewish and non-jewish slaves were second class citizens. Non-Jews by contrast were not second-class citizens, however they werent citizens at all.~~
that brought it home to me how important the word/concepts of goy and gentile to status under the israelite kingdom and how it related to dhimmi. PS i'm not disputing the existance of the laws of the israelite kingdom, i'm saying even if they where enforced perfectly it would not count for anything its still slavery.Hypnosadist 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
fair play bro, but consider that the main thrust of this entire discussion is in regards to a percieved inferiority and a social bias. Regardless of the slavery tangent im also trying to communicate the idea that Gentile or Goy are not derrogatory words. They are words and words with a purpose but they are used to denote non-jews and nothing else. Being that judaism is the single non-coercive monotheistic religion, any word used to denote other ethnicities or religions arent used to express any level of disdain. The reason that i mentioned non-jews not being citizens without feeling that it contradicts this central idea is that Israel was a non-expansive country and non-expansive religion. For the Romans or Babylonains to conquer your country and leave you as non-citizens is a bad thing cause you eventually run out of places you can go with those countries expanding and conquering.
Ah it just hit me, Dhimmi became Dhimmi when the Muslims "came to town" and the Muslims got around also. In a perfect world according to Islam there wouldnt be anywhere in the world where a person could avoid being Dhimmi. Whereas in regards to Israel the Israelites werent messing with anyone. If you wanted to live in Israel you could provided you abided by a few rules. Viewed in this light the term Goy becomes no more offensive than "resident alien". The problem with equating Dhimmi with Goy is that the Dhimmi were a conquered people who had islam imposed upon them, and that a goy was a settler in israel of his own free will. Furthermore a goy in israel, or "ger toshav", didnt have any special taxes levied on him, he was treated as a jew in regards to all matters of law pertaining to his own protection and the protection of his property, and didnt have any other unpleasant things forced upon him. In truth his "non-citizen" status gave him more freedoms than a full-citizen in that he could eat a pork-chop without his neighbors raising any eye-brows over it, and still have full protections and equitable treatment under the law, as long as he kept a few rules. Dhimmi and Goy are not related at all except superficially as words that two religions used to discuss others, to equate the two creates a lot of harm as it implicates jews looking down on non-jews which is not the case at all.
the main thrust of the slavery issue was raised do to the fallacies raised by "his excellency" its true the Jews were commanded to wipe out the dwellers of the land, but not to excede those borders and give the same treatment to others. the savagery of the initial israelite conquest was the exception to the rule of conduct, and only applied to the 7 nations of canaan who were living there at the tme and no one else. and even they were given the option to leave. furthermore the issue with the two sons of Jacob, simon and levy specifically, was something they did on their own initiative and was to indicative of the attitudes of the hebrews towards other peoples, otherwise there would have been a whole lot more "shechemite wars" as that fool put it. Furthermore the Israelites didnt even carry out this command and let alot of the canaanites remain in the land unmolested which ended up causing them problems down the road. Contrasted with Islam which holds a global mandate to convert the world the difference becomes obvious. Gentile doesnt mean Dhimmi. It means non-jew like non englishman, or non-american, without all the patriotic nonsese that usually coincides with such an apellation.
But no-one is equating "goy"/"gentile" and dhimmi. No-one has said that they were the same thing. They weren't. It is just that there is enough of a similar situation (minority faiths living under the law of a religious majority) for it to be useful to provide a link between the articles. We're only talking about a link, let's keep a sense of proportion.Itsmejudith 18:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Then let's leave it out. I could put Anti-semite on your talk page, saying there is no connection, I just thought I'd put it there; and I'd rightly get in trouble for vandalism. Let this go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs)
Someone used the word "anti-semitism" in an edit summary to exclude "gentile". I don't know if you're the same guy- please use four tilds to sign your posts here. It's a cheap tactic to make accusations of anti-semitism to exclude content you don't like. Nobody here is interested in presenting a negative image of Jews. The legal differences between Jews and Goys is a similar phenomena (not the same) to what Muslims practice in regards to the Dhimmi. No value judgements are being made here. I included 'heathen' and 'pagan' as well, which was the term used by Christians to describe rural non-christians. Pecher deleted them. There's no anti-semitism being expressed here, explicitly or implied. I merely find it useful that users have access to other examples of similar religio-ethnic terminologies for 'outsiders'. I should warn you regarding usage of accusations such as 'anti-semitic' in order to silence fellow editors. His Excellency... 21:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the post before last was from Leifern. And I don't want to blow it out of proportion, but I don't take kindly either to insinuations that I am guilty of anti-semitism. I and others have presented reasoned arguments why we think "gentile" is a relevant link. Let it go? Maybe. But letting go is not easy when the atmosphere is so consistently confrontational. If anyone has any further arguments (i.e. real ones) to add, then add them. Then let's leave it for a few days to so that we can all calm down. Then we can have a straw poll. In the meantime I will take advice from an admin on how to respond to the implied anti-semitism. Itsmejudith 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
~~That sound like a good idea to have a poll in a few days time.Hypnosadist 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)~~
My apologies for not signing. I did not imply that Itsmejudith is antisemitic, and I take offense at the accusation. In fact, my point was the opposite: you would have every reason to be insulted if someone made a link to antisemite on your page based on some spurious, superficial comparison. So wouldn't a similar connection between dhimmi and goy/gentile amount to the same thing? The fact that you took such umbrage to a point that was explicitly ironic rather proves the point. --Leifern 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Dhimmi and gentile and goy are related topics in the study of religions interacting with each other and comparitive religious studies in general. The see also links a related topics not identical topics or topics with negitive meanings. Our umbrage proves nothing other than how angry many wikipedians are at how uncivil wikipedia is at the moment, i blame world war four going on but thats obvious!Hypnosadist 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See also my comment below: By that logic, someone would be justified in putting Angela Merkel under Adolf Hitler without further explanation; or Workers' Communist Party (Norway) under The Killing Fields's see also section. They would surely be deleted as offensive, and appropriately so. As I've indicated, both could be mentioned in an article on how different religions deal with "others," but that would provide context. --Leifern 23:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
~~To do list~~
Should we have a to-do list for this article? It might help people to prioritise and concentrate their efforts instead of getting bogged down on discussions that go round in circles. Anyone against?Itsmejudith 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Good idea! --Aminz 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Removal of section :"Relations between the converted Dhimmis and their former brothers in faith"~~
~~Pecher, please reason why did you remove this section. Which newer source contradicts Jewish Encyclopedia and makes it outdated? --Aminz 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Echoed. AFAIK an encyclopedia should be considered a reliable source, on a par with papers in refereed journals.~~
What I was going to do was reword the section head to remove "brothers in faith" which is not gender-neutral language - as far as we know the same questions related to women dhimmis/ex-dhimmis as to men. Itsmejudith 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I to agree, usless contradicted by modern peer reviewed journal. How about Co-Religonists and Converts to Islam for gender neutral language.Hypnosadist 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Yes, Co-Religonists is much better than "brothers in faith". My english is not good, I couldn't find the good word for it. Thanks for the suggestion. I am interested to know more of how the relations (in social, economical, ... sense) between converted Dhimmis and their former Co-Religonists was. I am trying to find more about it. --Aminz 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It has already been established that the Jewish Encyclopedia, which happens to be axactly 100 years old is not a reliable source. See Jayjg's authoritative comment above. I am astonished that Aminz, who hiself asked Jayjg for comment about the Jewish Encylopedia, keeps pushing it into this article. This is not to mention that the section itself does not belong to this article.Pecher ^Talk 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As I've again been asked to comment on this, I must repeat that while the Jewish Encyclopedia was fine for its time, it's certainly not up to today's standards. The articles were written in an idiosyncratic and highly POV way, and varied depending on the author. One might consider using it in an non-controverisal area, but in any disputed section, or for any disputed information, it's simply not appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As long as I remember, the decision was that "One might consider using it in an non-controverisal area, but in any disputed section, or for any disputed information, it's simply not appropriate." Now, why this section falls into this category. Please note that I've asked above that "Which newer source contradicts Jewish Encyclopedia and makes it outdated?"; Hypnosadist agreed with the usage of Jewish Encyclopedia "usless contradicted by modern peer reviewed journal" and also Itsmejudith concured with me. Secondly, Jayjg, I am attributing the text to Jewish Encyclopedia. Please note that I am NOT writing it as "X is so". So, could you please explain how your "The articles were written in an idiosyncratic and highly POV way, and varied depending on the author." explains not using the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thanks --Aminz 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, can you please explain your comment above as well. When did I "keep pushing it into this article"?? When you removed the section from the article, did I revert you? I brought the issue here to the talk page and DID wait for you to comment (thought everybody else except you made commentes on it and agreed with having the section). --Aminz 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You keep pushing it into the article in this and another neighboring section. The issue of Jewish Encylopedia was settled long ago and closed, stop bringing it up. In addition, please stop inserting irrelevant sections into this article, even if you like the content. Pecher ^Talk 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I've asked for Jayjg's comment again. --Aminz 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)~~
If someone disputes the relevance or accuracy of a section, then, by definition, it is controversial and disputed. It's best to use modern reliable sources before inserting any information, particularly in an article like this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, would you please let me know how can someone "dispute the relevance or accuracy of a section, then, by definition, it is controversial and disputed." I remember when Pecher wanted to remove the disputed tags, he asked us to find a reliable source proving that the article is disputed. As much as I rememeber, you agreed with him that Jewish Encyclopedia is not enough to prove that the article is disputed. All of the editors working on this article except Pecher believe we can use JE "usless contradicted by modern peer reviewed journal". Would you please let us know how can one dispute the material from JE. Thanks. --Aminz 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with you that it's best to use modern sources. If any of us finds one such source and observes that there is a contradiction, it will establish that Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) is outdated. Still, it is hard for me to believe that JE gets greatly outdated on something that has happened many centuries before. --Aminz 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
~~So, does anybody here agrees with the section to be re-added per above conversation? --Aminz 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I agree with it going back in. However, I would like to revise my comment above about encyclopedias in the light of what WP:RS says about them as tertiary sources (although a distinction is made there between signed and unsigned articles). Articles in refereed journals must have top priority. Top of list of things to do for this article must be "find more relevant articles in refereed journals". Itsmejudith 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, if you know any modern source I can look up to find the similar statements, please let me know. I'll get the book from library and replace the quote myself. I don't want to 'sneak' something into the article, I swear by God. Jewish Encyclopedia does have POV. Making connection between 'how one group of people treat the others' and 'their ancestors' are made in Bible (not by me). It might seem strange, but that's how Bible views things (forgive me if I'm wrong). Now, I found it interesting to include this POV into the article (i.e. this connection between Muslims and Jews). Mainmoinds refers to Muslims as Ishmaelies (if I am correct). Itsmejudith, I've been subject to a harsh block for reasons which I still don't know. I was accused of all kinds of imaginable crimes in wikipedia, ranging from nationalism bigotry related crimes to harrassment, disruption and personal attacks + several kinds of humuliations and getting ignored from the blocking admin on the top of it. I am exhausted; it is up to you guys... Decide whatever you wish for this section and act upon it. --Aminz 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
To Aminz: "So, does anybody here agrees with the section to be re-added per above conversation?" The above conversation did not establish that the section should go back in; if anything it established disagreements over this issue. You don't win arguments simply by writing more than everybody else combined. To Itsmejudith: "I agree with it going back in." This is not an argument to consider unless you supply reasons why you agree with something. Pecher ^Talk 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pecher, yes I appreciate that wasn't an argument. I'm trying to find other sources that deal with the question, as well as to check out what the JE authors' sources were. It is a signed article in JE and Aminz has attributed the text explicitly to the authors. So it is "sourced material" that should not be deleted unless there is a better source that contradicts it. I reckon better can be found but it may take time. Would you like to help research it? Your natural scepticism might be put to good use. Itsmejudith 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point~~
Please do not enter dubious allussions to non relateed terms. Gentile has no association to Dhimmi.
Guy Montag 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't personally joined the discussion on Gentile since I didn't know exactly how it is. But I wonder why there is this much sensitivity to having this word in the "See also" section? There is a section above in which some editors have made some connections between Dhimmi and Gentile.--Aminz 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how placing gentile in the see also section counts as gaming the system or any other way of disrupting wikipedia. PS when did you last edit this page before the above post?Hypnosadist 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Jews, as well as Christians, were made to suffer for centuries as dhimmis. Perhaps there should be an article comparing how different religions deal with "others," in which case links to "Gentile," "Goy," "Dhimmi," etc., can be made in proper context. As it is, this link - deliberately or not - implies that there is equivalence between the Moslem concept of "dhimmi" and the Jewish concept of "Gentile." And there is no basis for drawing such equivalence. It would be like putting a link from the Salvation Army to Spanish Inquisition, because of some superficial connection in that they're both Christian and seek to promote the faith. Get it? --Leifern 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No moral equivalence is implyed, but a linkage in concepts is. Both the Salvation Army and the Spanish Inquisition should be linked, in whats known as a catagory, such as christian religious groups.Hypnosadist 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist - Be advised: as a Jew, I take great personal offense at your linking these. I am not getting into a 3RR problem over this, but I will start reporting this as vandalism unless you either respond constructively to my concerns or desist from this. We have tried to explain why this is so offensive to us - any further insistence on including it can only be construed as deliberate bad behavior. --Leifern 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Leifern, why do you think "this link - deliberately or not - implies that there is equivalence between the Moslem concept of "dhimmi"? ; we have links to "Kafir (Pagan)", "heathen", etc as well. Feel free to add more. It is in the "See Also" section after all. --Aminz 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it is provided without context, and the implication is that it is therefore equivalent. As I've said at least twice, an article that discusses different religions' view of "other" could have links to both, or all of these. It may well be that links to kafir, pagan, etc., also are offensive; I'll leave that to someone else to judge. I'm not going to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but I've illustrated a couple of examples of how one could go about that. --Leifern 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Leifern, I was indifferent to having Gentile in the See Also section from the very beginning. Still I don't understand how it is offensive (?) to you; but as you let us know that it is so, I don't think anybody here wants to make you unhappy. --Aminz 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm advised Leifern, there still is no implyed equivalence as dhimmi is not equivalent to the website dhimmi watch, but they are linked. Leifern - Be advised i take great personal offence at people who have not editted a page before turning up and demanding things are done thier way against a forming concensus and toss around accusations of bad wikiquette.Hypnosadist 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist and Aminz, please read my objections and respond to them. Hypnosadist, I don't know why you should take offense at someone arriving at an article and finding faults with it. That is the nature of Wikipedia, and it is how it improves. There may be other "see also" links that also need to go, and I didn't object when someone deleted the others - but I am focused on this one. There may be no equivalence in your minds - I should hope not - but the presence of the link clearly implies that there is. --Leifern 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Guy... stop. There is no disruption there's a content dispute. No one is 'right' and no truth is going to be found here. One side will bully their way and we will end up with or without the link. So, let's get on with that fun process and not pretend that either side is any more disruptive. gren グレン 11:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ive responded to your objections, just because you don't understand the job of the see also links is not my problem, or see them as the see utterly morally identical links, again is not my problem. You are reinforcements to push a specific pov arguement thats what i object to, i also object to the name calling by saying editors on this page are violating wiki policy just because most of the editors here disagree with you and will not do what you Demand them to do.Hypnosadist 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with another editor with whom you are arguing, on another article? --Leifern 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've requested temporary full protection of the See Also section until this calms down. We should organise a straw poll, even though it won't be binding and won't satisfy either side ;-) I also have an idea for compromise. That is that we put subheadings in the See Also, with one for "minority religious groups". And Leifern, I'm not sure what you were saying on Aminz's talk page about the antisemitism comment not being by you, when you've admitted here it was you and you just forgot to sign it. I've wasted time on this and don't want to waste any more. If you can just say you didn't intend to accuse me of antisemitism I will accept that and we can both get back to the search for compromise. I'm glad that you have now expanded on your reasons for not liking the links. Itsmejudith 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, please read my posts before you jump to conclusions as to what they mean. My point was this: if I simply pasted a link to "antisemite" on yours (or anyone else's) talk page, it would (rightly) be met with harsh criticism. But your reaction to this point illustrates mine rather well - much would be inferred from the association that isn't made explicit. --Leifern 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Point is not logical, personal talk pages are very different, that she though you where insulting her was probably due to the tone used by you and other new editors pushing this POV over the see also list.Hypnosadist 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Point is absolutely logical, but just to be clear I provided other analogous examples, e.g., putting a link to Angela Merkel under the "See Also" section in the article on Adolf Hitler. As for insulting with my tone, I postulated a hypothetical example to make a point. You didn't read it and made an inference for which there was no basis. Don't blame me for that. --Leifern 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More reinforcements in the form of User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, and the last time he edited this page or talked here was? Anyway the subsection for other religious concepts about groups who arn't the same religion sounds like a good idea. Judith i'm sorry for you over revert warring but this pushing of an extreme religous POV by non-contributing editors is vandalism and needed to be reverted.Hypnosadist 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm..How about a couple of days ago or so? Did you bother looking at the history or did you just figure that actual facts would be too inconsistent with you point? This article has been on my watchlist for some time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Guy (or anyone else) has yet to say how i was gaming the system or disrupted other pages to prove a point on this one, show me or withdraw this accusation!Hypnosadist 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, I haven't accused you of gaming the system, but here's the problem. The purpose of the See Also section is to provide links to related subjects that would help illuminate the topic in the article. The implicit context is the article itself. So, for example, there is a link to Architecture of Norway in the article on Stiftsgården because the latter is an example/subset of the former. The relationship is clear, and no one can draw an invalid inference. But if I had put Stiftsgården as a link in the See Also section of Kitsch, people could certainly draw the inference that Stiftsgården is an example of kitsch. I could assert all I wanted that such a relationship is left unstated, but any reasonable person would see that I was trying to make a point. The concept of dhimmi is specifically related to the legal rights and restrictions placed on certain non-Muslims in Moslem theocracies - there simply is no equivalent Jewish concept, but to link to superficially similar Jewish terms encourages the reader to make an inference that there is a stronger relationship than there is. As I've said before, I would welcome a well-written article that compares the way different religions deal with outsiders, and here there should be links to Gentile, Goy, Dhimmi, and any number of other terms. The subtext for this is a pervasive tendency within New Anti-Semitism to say that "Zionism/Judaism" is "just like" or "no better than" everything from Hamas to Eichmann. As recently as last week, there was a large demonstration in Oslo denouncing a "repeat of the Holocaust" in Lebanon. Some people (present party excluded, I hope) draws extreme pleasure from implying, expressing, or insinuating moral equivalence when there is none, if it serves the purpose of maligning Jews. So now you can understand why we're vigilant. --Leifern 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Its all about the subtext! Really very enlightning how your POV total dominates the reason for these edits. In fact according to levito as dhimmis are second class subjects under muslim rule and gentiles arn't given any citizenship rights (however ill formed at this point in human history) under jewish rule it could be said it is insulting to muslims to compare dhimmi to gentile, but i won't do that. That was framed in the same ways as your insinuations of New Anti-Semitism and then saying Some people (present party excluded, I hope) to distance your self from the stench of the dirt you have thrown. Vigilent and wrong, you and your mates can take your aganda and insults to another page as it will not be tolerated by me. PS if you think i'm a New Anti-Semitism please have the guts to say it straight.Hypnosadist 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no ideas what motivates you, Hypnosadist. I'm trying to explain why this is a big deal, since you asked - I don't know where you get the idea that my POV dominates the reasons. --Leifern 15:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
~~I agree with Leifern.--Mike18xx 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)~~
OOOOOOh! actually come up with a logical argument not some rant about demostrations in Norway, the examples given are just silly absurdisms.These concepts are linked but not the same. Possible Solution : Have the links to goy/gentile and write after them that they are not identical or moral equivalents you could change the wording to what ever just give it a think.Hypnosadist 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It makes no sense because everything in the "See also" section is not identical by definition. In addition, there is no practice on Wikipedia to add something other than links to the "See also" section. Pecher ^Talk 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get a compromise that we can all agree on.Hypnosadist 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, your "suggestion" is actually just another attempt to sneak Goy and Gentile into the "See also" section. Pecher ^Talk 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Stop making false accusations please. I was inspired by Hypnosadist's suggestion and am just trying to get a compromise that we can all agree on. --Aminz 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Just to be clear~~
~~I never meant to imply that Itsmejudith is antisemitic or harbors any prejudices against Jews or any other ethnic or religious group. --Leifern 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Thank you for this clarification. I also note that you were trying to make a point about the power of juxtaposition. Itsmejudith 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Protected~~
I want to lodge my objection and outrage that Gentile and Goy are linked in this article. While I appreciate the efforts at making headlines, the only inoffensive option is to remove such links altogether. --Leifern 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Leifern, feel free to edit the headings. Please explicitly somehow mention they have nothing to do with Dhimmi in the senses you mean. --02:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~A) The article is protected; and B) the links shouldn't exist at all. --Leifern 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)~~
~~1. Who asked the article to be protected? 2. Leifern, please try to find a compromise. --Aminz 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)~~
I've seen little evidence that you're interested in a dispassionate search for the truth, Aminz; "compromise" in your usage is just a euphemism for "surrender".--Mike18xx 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Mike, I have plenty of differences with Aminz, but he's a fair and sincere editor. "Gentile" and "Goy" are equivalent concepts to "Dhimmi" from the perspective of other religions. "Dhimmi" is a historical social and political phenomena derived from the religion- the difference between 'us' and 'them'.
Oh horseflop; dhimmis are/were conquered peoples subhumanly treated. Notwithstanding ongoing takeyya deception campaigns to keep us stupid infidels in the dark, of course.--Mike18xx 09:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Judaism had a similar concept, that being the 'gentile' or 'goy'.
Rubbish; a "dhimmi" in concept refers to something far, far different than XYZ language's term for "some schmuck of a different faith" rendered into English.--Mike18xx 09:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given proof that such concepts had legal implications as well at one time long ago; even though for the 'see also' section there'd be no need for evidence. Leifern's being overly dramatic over nothing. And given the constant squabbles over this article, I'm happy to see it protected, even though I strongly disagree with its content and POV-bias. His Excellency... 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make a suggestion coming at this from a different angle. Delete the entire See Also section. If a 75K article hasn't managed to link to a term in-prose (hopefully in an NPOV and verifiable way), it doesn't belong in the article at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I asked for the article to be protected, temporarily, so that a straw poll could be organised about the See Also. Shall we do this? Does anyone know how to? And what should the question be? Bunchofgrapes suggestion is persuasive, but is it in line with Wikipedia policy? Should we first poll on whether to have a See Also and then on what should be in it? Itsmejudith 05:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleting "See also" would merely represent appeasement. Er, no; let's not do that....--Mike18xx 10:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Appeasement, eh? Not following the conflicts here, I don't even know which "side" I'd be appeasing. Wikipedia is not a battleground, you know, and I wouldn't have suggested it if it didn't flat-out improve the article in my view. It's certainly within policy as an editorial decision. Why, take a look at a handful of featured articles and you'll see that few of them have See Also sections at all and those that do have very short ones. In this article, it's being at least partly used as a dumping ground for unreferenced free-association of ideas: that's a bad thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The right thing to do is to write an article called something like Treatment of Others in major religions to which this article would link. This would then include discussion of goy, gentile, etc., etc. That's my proposal. --Leifern 11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that an article like the one proposed above will not be a good addition to Wikipedia because it's not going to be anything more than a some of its parts. Pecher ^Talk 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
One could say that about any summary article, or any attempt at comparative religious study. But let's assume you're correct - then the links should simply be taken out. Enough of this nonsense already. --Leifern 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How about insted of Leifern's article we create a catagory of religipous concepts of "others" put goy, heathen, dhimmi and the rest into it, it would have less direct moral linkage that way? And that would be a noteable catagory once none abrhamic religious concepts get added to it.Hypnosadist 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Bad idea. This is precisely what's so offensive about this. Dhimmi and gentile are such different concepts as to have no relationship with each other. The current categorization rather illustrates the point - the links to Gentile, Goy, and possibly others should simply be eliminated, so we can get on with things. --Leifern 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Leifern's and Hypnosadist's solutions are well worth considering. But first we should have a look at existing articles and categories. Religious minority (redirects to minority religion) could do with some cleanup. As for religious segregation, in its current state it could offend not only Muslims but also supporters of Israel - and people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland as well. Quite an achievement for a short article! Itsmejudith 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To Leifern. On the use of "gentile". It is in the title of Aquinas's "Summa Contra Gentiles", written about 1260, a very important book in mediaeval Christianity and still today in western thought. There it means non-Christian belief groups: Jews, Muslims and Pagans. And thus there is a direct equivalence with "dhimmi" because Jews were considered "dhimmi" (in Arabic) while living under Islamic rule under restrictive conditions and "gentiles" (in Latin) while living under Christian rule under even more restrictive conditions. Note that I am not implying that there is the same direct equivalence with "goy", which "gentile" often but not always translates. Am I right in thinking it is the potential comparison with "goy" that you find offensive? Itsmejudith 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there is, simply put, no correspondence whatsoever between "gentile" and "dhimmi". The concept of dhimmi is unique to Islam in the sense that it allowed non-Muslims to live under the Muslim rule on condition of paying tribute and accepting their inferiority. The critical thing here "paying tribute"; this is what Sura 9:29 demands, and those non-Muslims who do not pay tribute, are not dhimmis. "Gentile", on the other hand, is a blanket term; it is not associated with tribute in any way. Pecher ^Talk 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Pecher, you are mistaken. Jews were subjected to special taxes in England in the 13th century before they were massacred and expelled. These were taxes not levied on the Christian population. Similarly in France, I think. I will track down the references and use them to expand the relevant articles about European Jewry. Jizya, which may have been a tribute in its original form, was of course by that time a tax. The requirement for distinctive clothing (in Europe becoming the yellow badge) is another parallel. Itsmejudith 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But that doesn't create an equivalence between "dhimmi" and the term "gentile" or "goy" as in "non-Jewish." There is no question that institutional discrimination of Jews has been recycled through the ages; what is in question is whether Jews have ever created a similar concept for non-Jews, enshrined in a term that is similar to "dhimmi." And the answer is "no." --Leifern 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The See Also section is just "SEE ALSO". It doesn't establish any equivalence and is not supposed to establish. --Aminz 23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
~~If there is no meaningful relationship between the two terms, there is no reason to include the term in the See Also section. Time to take it out. --Leifern 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)~~
I'm sorry but do you claim two concepts are either "equivalent" or "there is no meaningful relationship between the two"?! For example, the terms "blackboard" and "whiteboard" would be a contradiction to it. --Aminz 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Persecutions of Jews that Itsmejudith has described are relevant to the term "minority religion", which is already in the "see also" section, but not to the gentile article, let alone goy. I propose to add Persecution of Jews to give more perspective on the treatment of Jews. Pecher ^Talk 10:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Aminz, if you look at the use of "See Also" throughout Wikipedia, you'll notice that it never acts as the kitchen sink, so as to include pointers to every article that has a passing relationship. For example, look at the Ku Klux Klan article, and you'll see that the See Also section has pointers to other articles on institutionalized racism and victims of the Ku Klux Klan. The implication of including "goy" and "gentile" is very clear and obvious: Islam has "dhimmi," Judaism has "goy"/"gentile." It is not obvious that the terms and underlying concepts are profoundly different in every meaningful way and similar in only superficial ways. Put this into the already poisonous context of New Anti-Semitism, and many casual readers will falsely conclude that dhimmi and goy/gentile are cut from the same cloth. --Leifern 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
@Aminz: "See also" is neither intended for suggestive associations, much less for unrelated ones: you wouldn't like to see Nuremberg laws, Apartheid, or Segregation - all these are missing, and all of the "Aryan's", Boers, and Muslims share strong views on with whom (not) to dine, mingle or marry. That said, Segregation is a blanket term and missing here.

@Itsmejudith: "Jews were subjected to special taxes" - They were indeed, and were so in most countries of Europe's Middel Ages, cf. Schutzjude (unfortunately just a stub). Jews were, sometimes, given "protection", in exchange of useful services (e.g. "usury", forbidden to Christians) and financial compensation - think Pizzo and, yes, dhimmi. So Schutzjude would be a fitting addition, provided scholarly assertion is found. --tickle me 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Beware - some trolling: There weren't Muslims in numbers worth speaking of in MA Europe, but too much Jews to kill them all, besides, they were deemed "useful", so Schutzjudentum was the consequence. Islam handled it just like that, Byzantion having been the teacher - the difference being that Islam had to handle Jews *and* other ahl al-Kitab, "aquired" in the, err, defensive conquests from Spain to Bengal. Thus I'm somewhat miffed at this article's "Exernal links" section, with blurb explaining the dhimmi concept as a paramount example of Islam's tolerance. cf. Islam and its tolerance level, On Religious Tolerance, by Khalid Baig et al. --tickle me 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you tickle for the reference to Schutzjude, which does indeed seem to be relevant. I don't think we need a scholarly assertion to link to this or anything. The best use of scholarly information would be to boost articles like Schutzjude, currently a stub, and religious segregation, currently a mess.

To all: don't want to interrupt this polite discussion, but are we going to have a straw poll on See Also or not? If we are, someone else will have to start it cos I looked at the instructions on how to do it and couldn't make head nor tail.Itsmejudith 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
~~Lewis (1994) p.19 reads:~~

“ It is an essntial part of human behavior to divide the world into ourselves and the rest. The ancient Middle East had known many such divisions-kinsmen and stragers, Jews and gentiles, Greek and barbarians, citizens, metics, and aliens, as well as others. A classificiation already familiar to Jews and Chrisitians was between believers and unbelievers. In Islamic times this came to be by far the most important line of division, overshadowing all others.
Both these groups were of course subdivided in various ways. ... The unbelievers are subdivided... by two broad classifications, one theological, and other political....
”

~~--Aminz 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)~~
Which suggests See Also should include barbarian and citizenship, as well as the disputed gentile, and as tickle me suggests and I agree segregation. If there is to be a See Also ... Itsmejudith 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. Let's agree on one of the available options. I think it is less natural to remove the "See Also" section but it is fine with me. Adding barbarian and citizenship]], as well as the disputed gentile, and segregation is another option. --Aminz 21:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
~~Accidental wholesale revert~~
~~Was accidental. I was only trying to restore the reference. Sorry everyone. Itsmejudith 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)~~
Addition in Views of Modern scholars about Dhimmi
~~I would like to add following paragraph under Views of Modern scholars about Dhimmi in Dhimmi article. If someone can add to it, I shall be grateful to him. --SaadSaleem 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)~~
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, a Sunni Islamic scholar, writes that certain directives of the Qur’an were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad against peoples of his times, besides other directives, the compaign involved asking the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam.^[14]^[15]
Thanks SaadSaleem. BTW, If one can also apply these changes to Dhimmi article, I would be thankful. [14]. --Aminz 22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
And do all islamic scholars agree with this interpretation? It sounds very POV to me. TeunSpaans 20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because you're an idiot.
~~Notes~~

^ Tafsir Nemooneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, on verse 9:29

^ Jewish Encyclopedia

^ Jewish Encyclopedia

^ Tafsir al-Mizan on verses 2:83-88, Allameh Tabatabaei

^ Lewis (1984), p.62; Lewis (2002), p. 101

^ Al-Mawardi (2000), p. 158

^ Lewis (1984) p. 62

^ Lewis 1984 summary of p.62-66. See p.62(second paragraph), p.65(third paragraph)

^ http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2097

^ http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/019.sat.html#019.2931

^ Al-Mawardi (2000), p. 161; Friedmann (2003), p. 161; Lewis (1984), p. 27; Bat Ye'or (1985), p. 62

^ Friedmann (2003), pp. 161–162

^ Azizah Y. al-Hibri, 2003

^ Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Mizan, Chapter:The Islamic Law of Jihad, Dar ul-Ishraq, 2001[1].

^ Misplaced Directives, Renaissance, Vol. 12, No. 3, March 2002[2].

Thank you for this, Saadsaleem (you forgot to sign your contribution BTW). It looks like a very relevant and notable addition to that section. Unfortunately, no-one can edit the article at the moment because it is protected. That's something I asked for because there was a controversy going on about what to include in See Also. You can read the debate here and see the page history. When editors feel ready to resume editing by consensus then we can ask for the page to be unprotected and I/you/someone can add the above text relating to Mr Ghamidi. Itsmejudith 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
~~Pronunciation~~
~~How does one pronounce "dhimmi"? Can we have some sort of indication within the article? --Hyphen5 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Pecher~~
Does anyone have information in regards to Pecher's whereabouts, or indeed why he has deleted his userspace. He has been so instrumental in the development of this article, I would consider it a great shame if he gives up on it.82.152.196.224 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the deletion log for his page and it said that the content was removed by the user then an admin deleted the page. Yes it looks like we have another casualty of the WIKI-WAR!Hypnosadist 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, I ask that all contributers respect his comments from hereon, obviously alot of people disagree with some of his comments however, I think this article is in danger of becoming a little one sided unless we draw on the comments of such users before making changes.JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
~~Addition to Modern view of Dhimmi~~
CltFn, thanks for that addition. I am however concerned that you have exactly copy/pasted the text from Lewis's book: Ayatollah Khomeini in his book "On Islamic Government" indicates unequivocally that non-muslims should be required to pay the poll tax, in return for which they would profit from the protection and services of the state; they would, however, be excluded from all participation in the political process. [149] Bernard Lewis remarks about Khomeini that his main grievances against the shah was that his legislation allowed the theoretical possibility of non-Muslims exercising political or judicial authority over Muslims. appears exactly there. For the sake of Copyvio, would you please either rephrase it or quote the whole thing to Lewis in double primes. Thanks --Aminz 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
~~Forced Conversions~~
The article reads: "The pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. Although Muslim authorities sometimes raised the question whether dhimmis should be forced to accept Islam, the prevailing opinion was that dhimmis had to be allowed to preserve their religion largely because they were an economic boon to the Muslim state."
I found these on the referenced pages relevant to this passage but it doesn't seem to support it:
Lewis p.9:" Though there was general agreement on the need for slaves and women, there was at times some question about the need for unbelievers. The common view, however, was that they served a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic."
Bat Ye'or p.66 reads:
"The concept of "fay"-- collective booty reserved for the upkeep of the Islamic community-constituted the legal argument which preserved the religions of the conquered peoples. This economic burden, which devolved on the disarmed vanquished people to the benefit of a warlike community destined to conquer the world, is very clearly set out by Muslim jurist consults. However, the other specific aspects of the koranic revelation which teaches respect for the religions of the Book, and forbids religious constraints, also appears in the writings of these jurists, sometimes in the same discourse."
Thus, I suggest this change:
"From a Islamic legal perspective, the pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. Furthermore, the dhimmis were also serving a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic, which was another point of concern to jurists."
Any feedback? And suggestion? --Aminz 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
~~CltFn's edit~~
First, this article is about Dhimmi and that section is about "Enslavement" of "Dhimmis". So, that is not the place for the quote. Secondly, I have access to page 372 (unfortunately not 371) of the book and it reads:
"Once the war was over, people recieved dhimma in return for payment of jizya and generally were left in peace, again whether they were pagans or people of the book. One should not think of jihad as something conducted along the lines of Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons."
Should anybody has access to p.371, I would appreciate if you could let us know more information about the quote, its context, etc. Thanks --Aminz 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] Tafsir Nemooneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, on verse 9:29

[2] Jewish Encyclopedia

[3] Jewish Encyclopedia

[4] Tafsir al-Mizan on verses 2:83-88, Allameh Tabatabaei

[5] Lewis (1984), p.62; Lewis (2002), p. 101

[6] Al-Mawardi (2000), p. 158

[7] Lewis (1984) p. 62

[8] Lewis 1984 summary of p.62-66. See p.62(second paragraph), p.65(third paragraph)

[9] ttp://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2097

[10] ttp://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/019.sat.html#019.2931

[11] Al-Mawardi (2000), p. 161; Friedmann (2003), p. 161; Lewis (1984), p. 27; Bat Ye'or (1985), p. 62

[12] Friedmann (2003), pp. 161–162

[13] Azizah Y. al-Hibri, 2003

[14] Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Mizan, Chapter:The Islamic Law of Jihad, Dar ul-Ishraq, 2001[1].

[15] Misplaced Directives, Renaissance, Vol. 12, No. 3, March 2002[2].

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

Discrimination is a fact

Totally disputed?

Some evidences that the article is still disputed

Some evidences that the article is still disputed II

Protected_1

Meanwhile

Bringing Up To Standards

Alleged misrepresentation of a source

Abuse of Sources

Marriage section (again)

No direct accusations

Poor structure and unbalanced

al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya

Bat Ye'or & Andrew Bostom, reliable sources (?)

BAT YE'OR and WP:RS

Lack of online sources

Obvious misrepresentation of sources by Pecher

Removal of sourced material

So i'll be the first to talk about the AFD

This article has absolutely no regard for 'Neutral Point of View

Good books

Second class citizenship

More references are needed

Intro size

Attributing controversial material

Bravmann

possible compromise on Ye'or

Shia ritual purity

Attitude to bells

Verifying Accuracy of Content

Marriage as slavery

Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani, Taudhihul Masae'l

Shia ritual

Marriage & Slavery

Sagharoon

Apes and pigs?

Pecher's reverts

Andrew Wheatcroft

Sources

Current use

Blanking of sourced material

Sikhs

Ritual purity

Peer-reviewed articles

source on modern dhimmi

Welcome to new editor(s)

Gentile

See also

Gentile, again

To do list

Removal of section :"Relations between the converted Dhimmis and their former brothers in faith"

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Just to be clear

Protected

Accidental wholesale revert

Addition in Views of Modern scholars about Dhimmi

Notes

Pronunciation

Pecher

Addition to Modern view of Dhimmi

Forced Conversions

CltFn's edit