Talk:Jizya/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Modern Pakistan

There are reports that the Taliban have recently imposed Jizya in parts of contemporary Pakistan. The information should maybe be included in the article. [1] ADM (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that there should be a section dealing with the jizya as it is implemented today. Does Saudi, Iran, or Pakistan still impose it? The fact that the Taliban has imposed it on an area that they control is not clear in the body of the article. the wording is vague, and makes what is understandably an isolated case sound like it is the norm throughout the Muslim world today. The Taliban is a militia, not a governmental body. I think that the amount is also wildly beyond any traditional percentage ever imposed, something that would prompt Islamic scholars to call it "extortion". Similarly, isolated reports from Iraq would fall under a similar category. I think that this should be reworded to reflect this. "While it is no longer endorsed in most majority Muslim nations today, Islamic militias have imposed the jizya on areas that have come under their control".Jemiljan (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maliki School

under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims.[43] Thus some Muslim rulers also collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule. The collection of the tax was sometimes the duty of the elders of those communities, but often it was collected directly from individuals, in accordance with specific payment rituals described in the writings of Muslim jurists.[citation needed]

Its wrong Maliki School of Law is based in North Africa. It is tha Hanifiya School of law based in cenrals Asia Pakistan bangladesh that choose to collect Jiziya from Hindus, Buddhist and Sikhs (Sura 9:29) instead of the Swordverse (Sura 9:5) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.119.155.251 (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

The response to criticism section is very problematic in my opinion.

"Critics often use Jizya as a way to show discrimination in Islamic law. However, critics don't take into account that Muslims are obliged, but not compelled, to pay Zakat"

Who says critics don't take into account Zakat? What has Zakat got to do with jizya? The reference given is about Zakat and doesn't mention anything about jizya or or its relationship (or lack of) to jizya. Therefore this seems like original research or an improper synthesis.

"This also implies that any and all "conquered" peoples are obliged (but not compelled) to pay tax for being protected by their conquerors (ie Native North and South Americans, Australian Aboriginals and Eskimos being the most famous in the West as these demographics)."

This sentence is even more problematic. Who implies? What have native Americans etc got to do with jizya? Again there is no source. This seems to be a red herring, a completely unrelated argument that distracts from the original issue. Booshank (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article can't make claims about what critics think. I don't even understand the 2nd sentence. Wikinpg (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some POV concerns

Implying in the See Also section that jizya is a protection racket, "an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual coerces other less powerful entities to pay money" isn't helpful and indicates a POV that Islamic law is thuggish and criminal. Everyone is entitled to their opinions on Islamic law and jizya, but let's all keep in mind that value judgments are POV.

And while I won't contest the discrimination sidebar for now, I think we can agree that the Islam sidebar is more pertinent to the topic and should be on top.

Reasoned responses, constructive input, and sincere debate is welcome and encouraged. - BlindMic (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable compromise and appeal to constructive input. I agree with your edits about the sidebar and I think it's a reasonable argument about value judgment when associating jizya with a protection racket. I think though that jizya has been described by many scholars in a way that is essentially protection money on state level, e.g. here. But as you point out, protection money seems to be associated with non-state actors, so I would recommend to find a similar term or maybe investigate if protection money is always by non-state actors. Davidelah (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

appel a l'aide

paix a tous les islamistes ayant les possibilité de donner une aumone pour pouvoir voyager en paix est partout dans des endroits islamique est pouvoir manger est boire est faire de l'eau pour faire des soda je suis pour le moment resident a la rue des rameurs 27 1000 bruxelles est je tenais a saluer les islamistes qui m'ont envoyais des boissons islamique est des papier necessaire qu'un pretendant voisin les avais brigander sobhanallah hamdoulilah la i laha i la allah allah akbar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.107.142 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --محمد.طارق94 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Make Current

In the first section as part of the introduction, it is stated, "From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws,". This should be edited to state that "jizya is a material proof". Using "was" makes jizya sound like a historical practice when it is being imposed today.

In the section titled: "Ninteenth century", the last paragraph states, "In the 20th century, Hindus in British India who..." A new section or sections should be created called "Twentieth century" and also "Twenty-first century". Otherwise "history" should be defined differently rather than denoting the century.

It appears that the jizya has been imposed between the years 2000 and 2013 in some countries. See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/1222/What-the-Middle-East-would-be-like-without-Christians
http://shoebat.com/2013/06/27/syrian-cleric-christians-now-obligated-to-pay-jizya-tax/
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/19/lebanon-sectarian-attacks-tripoli
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/September/Egypt-Christians-Killed-for-Not-Paying-Jizya-Tax/

The current imposition of jizya should be included in this article to bring it up to date. Figlinus (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense, made 21st century section. I've put 19th and 20th century together because because relented events happened over the turn of the century.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for source

I've tagged the following statement for sourcing: "There is no equivalent to jizya in either Judaism or Christianity, which do not extract taxes on non-adherents."

Without sourcing, this seems potentially POV, as it could be taken to suggest that Islam is more discriminatory than either Judaism or Christianity. And I'd be very surprised if there was not either a Christian or Jewish society that has done the same thing at some point (especially given things like historical Christian treatment of the Jewish). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sasuke Sarutobi: I agree it is bad wording, potentially WP:Synthesis. Correct me if I'm wrong but Jewish and Christian texts don't go into how a society should be run economically to the same level? If that is the case better wording could be: Jonpatterns (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no direct equivalent to Jizya outlined in Jewish or Christian texts.

@Jonpatterns: Thanks for the quick response. That it's from religious texts is a good point, so that would be an important equivalence. This could be a better wording for the mean time, but I would say still suffers from the same issue of unclear sourcing. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing would be quite tricky, it would need someone to have compared the tax systems of different cultures and religions. In my opinion this criticism may be best removed. It may be helpful to start a WP:RfC to get more opinions. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove it. It seems that the whole point of the sentence is to stir up trouble, to attempt to prove the Christianity and Judaism are somehow better than Islam. It might be interesting to mention a similar tax being levied by a government under the influence of a different religion but the absence of any such thing isn't noteworthy. This is a bit like having a sentence on the Elephant page about the fact that hippos and rhinos don't have trunks. Jimp 09:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears to have already gone. I agree that it doesn't need to be in the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Twenty-first century addition should be added

Militants Set Down Strict Laws for Christians in Syrian City. new Jizya tax. I would add this myself but whenever i do on Wikipedia someone has to change it or remove it for some stupid reason. Thanks
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/militants-set-down-strict-laws-christians-syrian-city-n40146
--OxAO (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@OxAO: please add any 'notable' and reliably sourced information. Other editors may make a bold revert, in which case try and gain consensus on the issue. Consensus can be attempted on the talk page, another method is WP:RfC. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Explaining revert

Per WP:BRD please discuss. You need to confirm verifiability (I checked and couldn't), explain the reliability of blog and sources cited, evidence that content is widely accepted, as well as the relevance of the added content before adding those changes to the subsection or table. Please note that much of the content is also another attempt to copy and paste, and violate wikipedia's copyright policies, from book ISBN 978-1433033681 into this article. That book is unreliable and is a commercial brochure as evidenced by the advertisement for services at the bottom of each page. Repeated attempts to violate wiki's copyright policy is unacceptable. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And you are refusing to check those reliable citations that I had added to the article? I cannot help there, but I can only say that the citation was good enough for citing these, if you want more, just add something yourself or give some time. Removing it wouldn't work. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to Murat Çizakça, Holger Weiss, Kamaruddin Sharif references? Or to islamway.com you re-added? The latter is not WP:RS. Or, are you referring to Thomas Arnold sourced content? Can you provide a second source to confirm Thomas Arnold's claim has a wider acceptance? Latifa Raafat (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamway was of course unreliable citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Improperly/unspecifically cited sources

Some of these sources are improperly or unspecifically cited. For example this book Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry cites the punishment for non-payment of Jizya and Kharaj on page 7 but pages 7-11 are cited in the source. The sources should have been properly cited. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement "In practice, non-payment of Jizya tax, or the associated Kharaj tax, by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was punished by his family's arrest and enslavement." is not in the sources used to cite the statement. This book source and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Analysis and Slavery in Arab World only say the dhimmis who did not pay Jizya and Kharaj were enslaved. Also the Ahmad Baba on slavery part of the Sudanic Africa (A Historical Journal) is not available on Google Books. However it can be read on jtspor.org by creating a free account. This source does not say anything about punishment for jizya. Also the book source Delhi Sultanate:A Slave Society or society of slaves used in the Comparison between Zakat and Jizya section does not say the whole family were enslaved.

I think the statement "In practice, non-payment of Jizya tax, or the associated Kharaj tax, by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was punished by his family's arrest and enslavement." should be changed to The dhimmis who could not pay the jizya or Kharaj were enslaved. to properly reflect the true statement in the sources about punishment for non-payment of the two taxes. In case I'm wrong somewhere please do correct me. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the remaining cited pages of the book, not just page 7 of Lewis, Oxford University Press book? On others, I will add page numbers, quotes and more details on tarsīm, the Islamic word related to house arrest of a defaulter and his family for failure to pay al-jizya. Latifa Raafat (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Latifa Raafat Yes I did read all the remaining cited pages completely and carefully that too multiple times. The other cited pages didn't contain anything about punishment for non-payment of jizya. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Latifa Raafat Why have you restored the cited pages of the Lewis Oxford book as 7 - 11 and that of Gordon M book Slavery in the Arab World as 25-47? Only page no. 7 of the Lewis Oxford book and page no. 25 of Slavery in the Arab World mention the punishment for non-payment of jizya? You could have searched themselves instead of asking me. You have removed legit edits. Please restore them now. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the discrimination sidebar

I'm not sure if this article should be filed under discrimination; jizya might have its criticisms, but those criticisms are disputed and are not the prevalent opinion, and the presence of the discrimination sidebar implies that this topic has been agreed upon by most communities around the world to be discriminative (such as how the concept of attacking same-sex relationships is considered discrimination, for example), which is not the case. Therefore, I'm proposing the removal of the discrimination sidebar.

--محمد.طارق94 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Classifying jizya as discrimination is dubious and POV at best. BlindMic (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree.Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is treating people differently based on religion not discrimination? Jimp 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Truth-seeker2004, BlindMic, and محمد.طارق94:The inclusion of a sidebar does not "...impl[y] that this topic has been agreed upon by most communities around the world to be discriminative...", merely that it has been cited as discriminatory by a 'notable' and reliable source.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the discrimination sidebar

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jizya&diff=487721070&oldid=486851139

How and why is taxation based on religion (or rather not belonging to 1 religion) not discriminating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.239.3 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reintroduction of discrimination sidebar or navbox

It is. I propose putting the sidebar back. Jimp 09:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jiyza isn't on the Template:Discrimination sidebar and maybe it is too specific to go on. Another option is to use the navbox Template:Discrimination. Jizya should be added to this navbox. I agree the Jiyza article should have one or the other of these templates. A reference to discrimination should be made in the article with sources, if not currently present.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point about its being too specific. It's just a form of religious persecution. Adding it to the navbox is a better idea. Jimp 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a form of religious persecution. What are you really trying to push because I want to understand your mentality? RussianDewey (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's have it straight, two phrases from the article show that Jizya makes violence towards citizens of other religions. The frist one says: "However, historically, the Jizya tax has been rationalized in Islam as a fee in return for Muslim protection and the privilege of living in Muslim territory". That phrase might prove Islamic rulers to have pretty positive attitude towards citizens of other religions: protection in a Muslim territory — sounds good! Yet following phrase leaves no doubt about the nature of the protection: "The jizya tax was historically imposed on Jews and Christians in Arabian peninsula, North Africa, Caucasus and Spain, and on Hindus in South Asia". Had North African or Spanish Christians been immigrants welcomed by the Muslim to the territory they lived in, that imposition, possibly, might have been justified. But they were not immigrants! The immigrants or, rather, occupants were Muslim rulers. So Jizya seems to work in a similar way to Mafia's "imposing" payments, charging people for "protection" of their businesses. Either you pay or go, i.e. loose the "privilege" of living in your own country... That's rude and discriminative, isn't it?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Exemptions from Jizyah

The sentences about exemptions from Jizyah are vague and very poorly sourced. It says that there were exemptions in "early periods of Islam", which period specifically? There are two sources given, one is a modern article from a journal, and the other is incomplete, only "Ali (1990)" is provided. There are no Sunni hadiths that reference any such exemptions. So I have added the following sentence: "Though there is no mention of any such exemptions in Sunni Islamic Law, or any example of exemptions being given by Prophet Muhammad or his companions." But I think that if we cannot find any early sources that mention any exemptions, the whole section should be removed.

Punishment for non-payment

Only one source lists that the family was arrested and enslaved. According to the other sources the dhimmis who didn't pay were arrested and enslaved. Another one says they along with tgeir family was put under house arrest. This means there were different punishments for non-payment over the history. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Three mention arrest and enslavement of families. Heyboer. Petrushevsky. Ryan. You acknowledge "According to the other sources the dhimmis who didn't pay were arrested and enslaved". Dhimmi includes all ages and both genders. Latifa Raafat (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat I earlier had said in the previous section that the sources only say "According to the other sources the dhimmis who didn't pay were arrested and enslaved". They don't say the family was arrested or enslaved. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't notice the Petrushevsky and Ryan sources earlier because they were in a different line. Also as I have said some sources only mention those who didn't pay jizya were enslaved. They however don't mention anything about families being enslaved or not. They are Bernard, Gordon and Cohen sources. Such sources can't be used to say that the family of the defaulters was arrested or enslaved. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Two issues.

• In the "Rationale" section it is written:

" and because the Jizya tax rates were significantly higher than Zakat tax rate."

However this isn't true. This tax was usually less than what the Muslims had to pay as tax.

• In the "Application/Source of jizya tax" it is written:

"However, these exemptions were no longer observed during later periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory."

This is also wrong. Ibn Qayyim writes: “There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. [And that includes Shafi'i] Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.” --HakimPhilo (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Salaam Hakim, is it possible you can lend be those books if you have the pdf version. RussianDewey (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo - There seems nothing on p. 332 of Wael B Hallaq that suggests, "This tax was usually less than what the Muslims had to pay as tax." The second paragraph states the the jizya were at three levels: 48 dirhams for the rich, 24 for the middle, 12 for poor. It also states that if a dhimmi converted to Islam, "he would owe no poll taxes (jizya) whatsoever for that year". Are you confusing aman with dhimmi? I await your clarification.

On Ibn Qayyim. The view of imams is already mentioned in the article. For WP:NPOV, we must mention all sides. In this case, the other side is "However, these exemptions were no longer observed during later periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory." Latifa Raafat (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat I forgot to add another source (specifically: Daniel C. Dennet Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam), will check it later. By the way, I'm too waiting for your clarifications to show me where "the early Islamic period" was written in Abu Yusuf's Kitab al-Kharaj and in Thomas' The Preaching of Islam.

I'm also waiting for your clarifications as to why you suppressed my references to Ibn Qayyim, since they contradict what you took for granted what you quoted after (namely that Shafi'i abolished those exemptions).

And why did you delete my citation of the classical scholar Ragheb Isfahani on his definition of jizya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HakimPhilo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, you say: "We must mention all sides". However that's not a reliable side, there's no evidence to suggest that Imam Shafi'i (ra) discarded these exemptions, Ibn Qayyim specifically stated that when he said that: "Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.”". If you were to cite all sides then please provide empirical evidence for them. You also quoted a book by Andrew G. Bostom. First he's an associate professor of medicine at Brown University, he isn't a qualified expert on Islam and his claim is in contradiction with classical Islamic sources such as Ibn Qayyim (as well as the statement of Ibn Munzar and the famous Ibn Qudama. Anas Ibn Malik (ra) also stated that: "Malik said, "The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The people of dhimma and the magians do not have to pay any zakat on their palms or their vines or their crops or their livestock. This is because zakat is imposed on the muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them." http://sunnah.com/urn/406240). If you were to prefer a doctor opinion on Islam over classical Islamic sources then that's a clear violation of WP:RS, WP:YESPOV and WP:Claim. For WP:NPOV, we must mention all sides but fairly and without bias, and without violating other policies such as WP:RS. I will render the previous edit since you violated those policies. - HakimPhilo (talk • contribs)

I accepted some of your edits. I copyedited a few because repetition is unnecessary (WP:WWIN, WP:MOS). Abu Yusuf was an 8th century scholar, an early scholar. Al-Shafi‘i died in early 9th century, he too was an early Islamic scholar. Malik ibn Anas too was an early scholar. It is misleading to state their views in a way as if those represent Jizya theory and practice from 8th to 20th century, because they died long ago. If you read the entire chapter of the cites, you will see that the cites clarify those views to be from early Islamic period. I note you other concerns. I will add a second source to what I have already cited, where your concern has merit. Ignore Sunnah.com and such websites, as they are not WP:RS and WP:HISTRS for guidelines on appropriate sources. Latifa Raafat (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: "I accepted some of your edits. I copyedited a few because repetition is unnecessary (WP:WWIN, WP:MOS)." So why didn't you delete the other repetitions found in the "Rationale". (specifically Al-Razi's explanation of 9:29 and "Many Muslim rulers saw jizya as a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of the authority of the Islamic state.")

"[Abu Yusuf]] was an 8th century scholar, an early scholar. Al-Shafi‘i died in early 9th century, he too was an early Islamic scholar. Malik ibn Anas too was an early scholar. It is misleading to state their views in a way as if those represent Jizya theory and practice from 8th to 20th century, because they died long ago." -- Quiet ironically you deleted my citations of Ibn Qayyim, who lived in the 1292–1350 CE, as well as the statement of Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi who lived in 1147-1223 CE. I'm waiting for your clarification concerning this matter, since if none is given that would directly imply that you're biased and delete sources that contradict your whims.

"Ignore Sunnah.com and such websites, as they are not WP:RS and WP:HISTRS for guidelines on appropriate sources." -- Why is sunnah.com (which is just a site where Hadith collections are put along with their translations and most importantly their isnads, and evaluation when it comes to collections other than Muslim and Al-Bukhari) non an appropriate source? Saying that sunnah.com isn't reliable is equivalent to saying that quran.com isn't reliable; So why do you prefer the latter over the former?

I'm still waiting for your clarifications as concerning:

• By the way, I'm too waiting for your clarifications to show me where "the early Islamic period" was written in Thomas' The Preaching of Islam.
• I'm also waiting for your clarifications as to why you suppressed my references to Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Qudama (who didn't live in early periods of Islam), since they contradict what you took for granted what you quoted after (namely that Shafi'i abolished those exemptions).
• I'm also waiting for your clarification as to why the associate professor of medicine at Brown University Medical School Andrew G. Bostom is a reliable source concerning Islam and should be preferred over Ibn Qayyim And Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi.
• Why in the first paragraph of the "Source of Jizya tax" you wrote before every statement: "According to ...", but when you came to the second paragraph you didn't use that (until I putted it) and cited statements as if they were facts?
• Why did you twist my references for instance you state: "The collectors of the jizyah, wrote Abu Yusuf, were instructed to show leniency, and avoid corporal punishment in case of non-payment." No, it's not Abu Yusuf that stated it, it's Thomas Walker! He said in 'The preaching of Islam': “The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the arms of the rich, but had to pay it if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment.” (The Preaching of Islam p.60) --HakimPhilo (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to read the sources again. It is indeed Abu Yusuf who wrote that, Thomas Walker is just restating Yusuf's view, and I have added a second cite to help verify that.

One quote from each side is enough on rationale. Ibn Qayyim opinion is WP:PRIMARY and you misused it encyclopedically per WP:PSTS (note: Ibn Qayyim's mistaken opinion has been disproven by later scholarly work; the views of Imams is already in the article - as I noted earlier). I plan to add some more cites/sentences to improve the section you have recently revised. Latifa Raafat (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: "It is indeed Abu Yusuf who wrote that, Thomas Walker is just restating Yusuf's view, and I have added a second cite to help verify that." That solves the issue, sorry since I wasn't attentive.

"One quote from each side is enough on rationale." Maybe, but what about Al-Razi's quote and the statement under it?

"Ibn Qayyim opinion is WP:PRIMARY and you misused it encyclopedically per WP:PSTS (note: Ibn Qayyim's mistaken opinion has been disproven by later scholarly work; the views of Imams is already in the article - as I noted earlier)" No, he wasn't disproved. He is WP:PRIMARY, same concerning Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi. Quoting the associate professor of medicine at Brown University Medical School Andrew G. Boston or an WP:TERTIARY source isn't sufficient to disprove him.

Again many unsolved issues:

• By the way, I'm too waiting for your clarifications to show me where "the early Islamic period" was written in Thomas' The Preaching of Islam.
• Quiet ironically you deleted my citations of Ibn Qayyim, who lived in the 1292–1350 CE, as well as the statement of Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi who lived in 1147-1223 CE. I'm waiting for your clarification concerning this matter, since if none is given that would directly imply that you're biased and delete sources that contradict your whims.
• I'm also waiting for your clarification as to why the associate professor of medicine at Brown University Medical School Andrew G. Bostom is a reliable source concerning Islam and should be preferred over Ibn Qayyim And Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi.
• Why in the first paragraph of the "Source of Jizya tax" you wrote before every statement: "According to ...", but when you came to the second paragraph you didn't use that (until I putted it) and cited statements as if they were facts?
• To prove that Shafi'i banned those exemptions you make as a reference: "Daniel Dennett (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. pp. Ch 1, 3.", What? Did you read his work instead of putting non-specific citations? And I can't access the other references, you need to make a citations from them.
• Why is sunnah.com (which is just a site where Hadith collections are put along with their translations and most importantly their isnads, and evaluation when it comes to collections other than Muslim and Al-Bukhari) non an appropriate source? Saying that sunnah.com isn't reliable is equivalent to saying that quran.com isn't reliable; So why do you prefer the latter over the former? --HakimPhilo (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hakimphilo - I have been contributing to this article for quite a while now. You are new. Your first edit was on May 17 2015 here. If you visit that link and scroll down, then read the "Sources of jizya tax" section, you will note that there was no "According to ..." in that section, as you allege above. Do not accuse. Study the sequence of edits since you started, and the constructive clarifying nature of my edits will be self evident. Do not pester and repeat tendentious questions, as I will not repeat my answers from above, and will address only constructive questions. Your repetitive questions are time stamped for 18:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC), yet irrelevant to the version an hour before (e.g. Bostom sentence was deleted by then, etc). Do read WP:TALK and WP:TPNO guidelines for talk page. Respect them. On Daniel Dennett, I have added the page numbers. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: First please use {{Reply to|My Username Here}} to ping me. Second: "I have been contributing to this article for quite a while now. You are new. Your first edit was on May 17 2015 here.", That doesn't constitute a viable argument, and that's not even true: My first edit was in 5 August 2014, 22:01 in my Ar. account.

"If you visit that link and scroll down, then read the "Sources of jizya tax" section, you will note that there was no "According to ..." in that section, as you allege above. Do not accuse." I didn't talk about early edits, but recent ones.

"Study the sequence of edits since you started, and the constructive clarifying nature of my edits will be self evident." Let's just look at the structural aspect of your last edit:

Structural analysis.

"Do not pester and repeat tendentious questions, as I will not repeat my answers from above, and will address only constructive questions." All my questions were related to your edits, to your citations, to your sources... all were related to the discussion and improvement of the article. Neglecting them on the alleged basis that they aren't constructive wont help make that article better and clear unfactual claims from it.

"Your repetitive questions are time stamped for 18:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC), yet irrelevant to the version an hour before (e.g. Bostom sentence was deleted by then, etc)." The only things you did was to remove Bostom's sentence, you didn't address the other issues.

"Do read WP:TALK and WP:TPNO guidelines for talk page. Respect them." Did.

"On Daniel Dennett, I have added the page numbers." The claim is that Shafi'i banned those exemptions. You don't need to reference 17 pages. (namely: 107, 108, 109, 110, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 128) Provide the specific passage and include a specific page. I have a different edition, I've looked at the last pages but couldn't find anything that says "Shafi'i banned those exemptions".

I'll repeat the issues you didn't address:

• Why is sunnah.com (which is just a site where Hadith collections are put along with their translations and most importantly their isnads, and evaluation when it comes to collections other than Muslim and Al-Bukhari) non an appropriate source? Saying that sunnah.com isn't reliable is equivalent to saying that quran.com isn't reliable; So why do you prefer the latter over the former?
• By the way, I'm too waiting for your clarifications to show me where "the early Islamic period" was written in Thomas' The Preaching of Islam.
• Quiet ironically you deleted my citations of Ibn Qayyim, who lived in the 1292–1350 CE, as well as the statement of Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi who lived in 1147-1223 CE. I'm waiting for your clarification concerning this matter, since if none is given that would directly imply that you're biased and delete sources that contradict your whims.
• I'm also waiting for your clarification as to why other third party source WP:TERTIARY are much reliable concerning Islam than Ibn Qayyim And Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi which are WP:PRIMARY.
• Why in the first paragraph of the "Source of Jizya tax" you wrote before every statement: "According to ...", but when you came to the second paragraph you didn't use that (until I putted it) and cited statements as if they were facts? [Refer to the structural analysis I provided in the image referenced before.]
• To prove that Shafi'i banned those exemptions you make as a reference: "Daniel Dennett (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. (many pages)", It must be specific, including only one page as explained before. And I can't access the other references, you need to make a citations from them. --HakimPhilo (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: Note: After some research I saw that this isn't the only time where you violated WP:NPOV (which I invite you to kindly read and respect) as in the Hindu–Islamic_relations wiki article. One user noted that: "While mentioning drawbacks of Hindu religion you repeatedly used wording like "It was/is bad but now it is changed", but while criticizing Islam you used wording like "It was/is bad" without using further "but". You used "but" after writing anything good about Islam, like, "It is/was good but nowdays..."." source And you again made the same thing, stating: "Jizya was exempted from ... in early periods (it was good)" and then "but now it isn't...". I invite you to refrain from that line of conduct and start respecting WP:NPOV. Thanks. --HakimPhilo (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: Here's a more structural analysis of your last edit:

• Whenever there's a mention of "early Islamic period" you mention "According to Abu Yusuf" or an equal expression.
• The first paragraph starts with "was" and the second "however [now it become bad]", just as the other user found you doing in the Hindu-Islamic relations. (1)
• (In red) 1 is in contradiction with 2.
• All the green parts [which you cite as if they were factual] have no "According to" or a similar expression.

And there are more issues, particularly a misuse of WP:TERTIARY (which I kindly invite you to read):

• I'm waiting for clarifications as concerns your misquote of "Daniel Dennett (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. pp. 107–110, 116–128. ISBN 978-0-674-33158-7." which you claimed showed that the Shafi'i school abolished those exemptions.
• You cited "Bat Yeor (2002). Islam and Dhimmitude : where civilizations collide. Madison", however that book isn't even a thirdly source and is a biased account of history. Robert Brenton Betts said: "The general tone of the book is strident and anti-Muslim. This is coupled with selective scholarship designed to pick out the worst examples of anti-Christian behavior by Muslim governments, usually in time of war and threats to their own destruction (as in the case of the deplorable Armenian genocide of 1915). Add to this the attempt to demonize the so-called Islamic threat to Western civilization and the end-product is generally unedifying and frequently irritating." Joel Beinin says that Bat Ye'or exemplifies the "neo-lachrymose" perspective on Egyptian Jewish history. According to Beinin, this perspective has been "consecrated" as "the normative Zionist interpretation of the history of Jews in Egypt." The bigger problem is that it contradicts a PRIMARY source! Namely Ibn Qayyim And Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi. (1292–1350 CE & 1147-1223 CE)

I'm waiting for your clarifications. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References

@HakimPhilo -

1. Consider the positive reviews of Bat Ye'or for balance and a neutral viewpoint.
   No matter how much dispassion and objectivity scholars of Islam strive to maintain, their works often tend either to romanticize or to impugn their subject. Bat Ye'or's work in this volume, while meticulously substantiated and carefully presented, inclines toward the latter tendency. - Theodore Pulcini, The Middle East Journal, Vol. 56, No. 4, Review of Islam and Dhimmitude - Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Ye'or
   The book has been published by Farleigh Dickinson University Press, and cited for facts by scholars. For example, [1] Dario Fernandez Morera, The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, The Inter Collegiate Review, 2006, Vol. 41, pp. 23-31; [2] B. Tibi (2010), The politicization of Islam into Islamism in the context of global religious fundamentalism, Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 1(2), pp. 153-170; etc.
2. In other words, the Bat Ye'or book has both been praised and vilified by scholars for "her tone" and such things. Yet neither the reviews you mention, nor others question the historical facts and evidence she collects and presents. If you read carefully the sentence I added, it is just a summary of factual information, which she herself cites in footnote 72 of chapter 2 (so that is not her opinion, she sources it from a scholar). That position of Shafi'i jurists in Islamic history has been mentioned by others, including the second source from a peer reviewed journal, which is already in the article. If you insist, I will add a third source, but frankly I see nothing in your analysis above that questions the Shafi'i jurists position on jizya. For NPOV, I welcome you to add a summary from any reliable scholarly publication that states a different position of Shafi'i jurists on jizya.
3. The rest of your questions and concerns are, frankly, strange, rude and tendentious. You have falsely misrepresented me and rudely accused me of "preferring quran.com" above, when this article is about jizya and this article makes no mention of that website. On other matters, I will ignore all but one of your questions because your questions are irrelevant to the goal of this talk page: collaboratively improve the current version of this article. One of your questions is relevant, and here is my answer: I have added clarifying language on century (or equivalent) in the entire section, because as I wrote earlier, it is important to clarify early Islamic views and practices from later views and practices on "sources of jizya tax", from 7th century to 20th century, for balance, completeness and NPOV. I do not favor "according to..." language, but do favor clarification of the timeline / century. If you wish to add more clarifying language to improve the section, while respecting wikipedia policies, I welcome you to do so. Latifa Raafat (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: First and foremost please use {{Reply to|My Username here}} when responding, so that I receive a ping. Thank you.

"Consider the positive reviews of Bat Ye'or for balance and a neutral viewpoint." Note that most of those positive reviews were written by Islamophobes who are generally viewed as biased (Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, ...). Bat Ye'or is no exception, she has connections with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as well as the JihadWatch network. You're violating Wikipedia's pillar to be neutral, and you aren't objective.

"The book has been published by Farleigh Dickinson University Press, and cited for facts by scholars." Which scholars? Was it cited by experts like Esposito? It isn't even compatible with primary sources (Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi), read WP:PRIMARY. Are you going to say that she debunked Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi?

"In other words, the Bat Ye'or book has both been praised and vilified by scholars for "her tone" and such things." Yes, it was verified for being Islamophobic.

"Yet neither the reviews you mention, nor others question the historical facts and evidence she collects and presents. If you read carefully the sentence I added, it is just a summary of factual information, which she herself cites in footnote 72 of chapter 2 (so that is not her opinion, she sources it from a scholar). That position of Shafi'i jurists in Islamic history has been mentioned by others, including the second source from a peer reviewed journal, which is already in the article." -- Your sources are dubious (and keeping in mind your background of providing unspecific sources and of misquoting things [c.f. your misquote of "Daniel Dennett (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press."]), provide the specific passage from that paper published in that peer reviewed journal (which I can't access). Also keep in mind the most important point: those sources contradict the PRIMARY sources (namely Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi).

"If you insist, I will add a third source, but frankly I see nothing in your analysis above that questions the Shafi'i jurists position on jizya." What? You forgot the quote of Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Quadama al-Maqdisi that you specifically suppressed since it contradicted your other third party sources? Ibn Qayyim writes: “There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. [And that includes Shafi'i] Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, [He lived in 1147-1223 CE] ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.” (Ibn Qayyim, Ahkam Ahl Zimma, 1/14)

"For NPOV, I welcome you to add a summary from any reliable scholarly publication that states a different position of Shafi'i jurists on jizya." Shafi'i jurists never had a different position, only one position as detailed in Ibn Qayyim, Ahkam Ahl Zimma, 1/14, which is a PRIMARY source. I think your failure stems from failing to recognize that to cite Islamic jurists opinions you need to go to the primary sources.

"The rest of your questions and concerns are, frankly, strange, rude and tendentious." Please stop making accusations whenever someone has a different opinion and instead make collaborative work. Simply stating that my questions are "rude" isn't going to make us progress on the article.

"You have falsely misrepresented me and rudely accused me of "preferring quran.com" above, when this article is about jizya and this article makes no mention of that website." WP:ACCUSE, No, I didn't say that you preferred quran.com over any other site; I simply asked you why quran.com would have been accepted as a reliable source but sunnah.com wouldn't. I didn't accuse you of anything nor did I misrepresent, twist or change anything from what you said.

"On other matters, I will ignore all but one of your questions because your questions are irrelevant to the goal of this talk page: collaboratively improve the current version of this article." All my questions are either related to one of your edits, to the structural foundation of the text, to the sources, ...etc. Simply ignoring them is to passively dismiss efforts made to contribute to the article and render it neutral.

"I have added clarifying language on century (or equivalent) in the entire section, because as I wrote earlier, it is important to clarify early Islamic views and practices from later views and practices on "sources of jizya tax", from 7th century to 20th century, for balance, completeness and NPOV. I do not favor "according to..." language, but do favor clarification of the timeline / century. If you wish to add more clarifying language to improve the section, while respecting wikipedia policies," My Objection was that you added "according to..." whenever Abu Yusuf was mentioned, and you didn't state it on other occasions. And you claim to respect WP:NPOV but you didn't, see the conversation above. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo - Ibn Qayyim is a primary source and his opinions are undue as they do not meet wikipedia's fringe and WP:PSTS guidelines. Ibn Qayyim was highly controversial with Islamic scholars of his times. He was criticized and after a campaign against him by many Shafi'i and Maliki Islamic scholars, he was imprisoned for years and publicly punished for his fringe views. Do you have a WP:HISTRS secondary source that cites Ibn Qayyim? Furthermore, Ibn Qayyim did not write in English. To avoid WP:OR, you should provide a scholarly source that has translated Ibn Qayyim and interpreted the context. Original research is not acceptable on wikipedia. Latifa Raafat (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat: First and foremost please use {{Reply to|My Username here}} when responding, so that I receive a ping. Thank you.

"Ibn Qayyim is a primary source and his opinions are undue as they do not meet wikipedia's fringe and WP:PSTS guidelines." Ibn Qayyim is a primary and he described the legal opinion of the 4 Imams. (Shafi'i, Malik, Hanifa, Ibn Hanbal) How can you claim that he wasn't neutral? Maybe he wouldn't be neutral when discussing other religions, but here he is talking about legal theory, why would you think that he'll twist it to suit his whims? And why would you think that Bat Ye'or who has connections to Islamophobic networks and who doesn't have any particular degree on Islam (let alone Islamic law) will have a more legit opinion on Islamic law?

"Ibn Qayyim was highly controversial with Islamic scholars of his times." Citation needed. And even if it were *that* true that wouldn't mean that his statement: "There's no jizya on ... This is the view of the four imams..." is wrong, to show that it isn't true you need to provide WP:PRIMARY sources of those particular Islamic scholars of Ibn Qayyim time who disagreed with him on that issue. And by the way it is also the opinion of Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama [1147-1223 CE], was he controversial amongst Islamic scholars of his times? Did they object to his opinion? And if you were to play that game: I can also object that Bat Ye'or is a highly controversial figure whose opinions aren't acknowledged in non Islamophobic circles.

"Do you have a WP:HISTRS secondary source that cites Ibn Qayyim?" Why? Doesn't the WP:PRIMARY source suffice?

"Furthermore, Ibn Qayyim did not write in English. To avoid WP:OR, you should provide a scholarly source that has translated Ibn Qayyim and interpreted the context." As if his book wasn't translated.

I'm still waiting for your clarifications in what concerns the other issues I raised in my bullet points.

Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of proper sources

Many sources aren't specific, I highlighted only some in the article. --HakimPhilo (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: They are specific. I checked a few and was able to verify. The nonspecific tag must only be used in this or other articles when cite is missing, not when cite is present. The template page states, "This tag is for placement after purportedly factual statements that could be relevant, but are not cited". It is inappropriate to use of this tag, when cite is present, and some editor uses a page range and you couldn't be bothered to read those pages for the context and WP:V, something you seem to be doing in this and other Islam-related wiki pages. RLoutfy (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To give just one example of your disruptive abuse in this article, @HakimPhilo, you tagged 'nonspecific' here. The cite stated p. 69-73. I checked. I find abundant support in the cited Malik book, and the specific support is in lines 17-22 of p. 69. Did you really bother to check any of the cited sources in this and other Islam related articles, before tagging it 'nonspecific'? RLoutfy (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary

There is some dispute between RLoutfy and Al-Andalusi, but it seems difficult for others to follow. Can you please summarize in as few words as possible? I am always quite suspicious when statements sourced to scholarly sources from Stanford and Oxford are removed or challenged, unless some case can be made that they are somehow WP:UNDUE.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One open issue is this above. The dispute is about content from recently published scholarly cites. One cite states "Jizya and Kharaj were crushing burden on non-Muslim peasants", while the other states, "in Byzantine region, the Islamic tax burden was lower than before".

I want all sides to be summarized in the main article, and a shorter summary in the lead. @Al-Andalusi, for reasons unclear to me, states that this sourced content does not belong in this article because it is NPOV, and has deleted it from main as well as the lead, here and here. This is one instance where we have come to a standstill, without a consensus. I am waiting for a third opinion. I am open to alternate wording that better summarizes the cites. RLoutfy (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A contradiction

In the section "Islamic legal commentary" we're told that: "According to Abu Yusuf, Jizya must be collected from anyone who has any means (income, property), even if he is a cripple, invalid, monk or blind..." whereas in the subsection on exemptions we find: "Abu Yusuf wrote, "slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax"[79][95] and states that jizya should not be collected from those non-Muslims who have neither income nor any property, but survive by begging and from alms.[79]" --CounterTime (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Another contradiction: One is told in the jizya/zakat table that "Jizya is obligatory on a Dhimmi's regardless of income or wealth; no minimum (Nisab) to determine Jizya[205]", yet we find in the exemptions section that the poor were exempt from the tax. --CounterTime (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Stable version until consensus is reached

Context:

@CounterTime: Here is the link to the stable version before your or my bold edit. I have reverted it to pre-your and pre-mine, November 17 stable version. Once we have a consensus per WP:BRD, we can revise it. RLoutfy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Okay, great, thanks for cooperating. Now all you have to do is to explain and answer all the issues underlined in the talk page. --CounterTime (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edits

@RLoutfy: Can you please show a quote of "Ennaji, M. (2013). Slavery, the state, and Islam. Cambridge University Press; pages 60–64; ISBN 978-0521119627" which supports the claim "Jizya has also been rationalized as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam"? --CounterTime (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of content

The user @RLoutfy: continues in his series of POV edits when, as eloquently explained by Reeves.ca "Why is RLoutfy freely editing the article while so much is in dispute while my edits are reverted? Shouldn't the disputes be resolved first as you stated above?", anyway he deleted my additions in the Qur'an subsection (3.1), I'm waiting for explanations for that. --CounterTime (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of a tag

The user @RLoutfy: deleted the "Primary source" banner in the subsection "Hadith sources" which only relies on translations of Hadiths from various Hadith collections. I've restored it, and we ask the meant user to explain his act. --CounterTime (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Other Unexplained deletion of content

RLoutfy deleted in this edit my content stating that english sources are preferred over nonenglish ones, however most of it comes from the M.A.S. Abdel Halem peer-reviewed article on Q.9:29, only Kitabul Umm and Tafsir Maraghi are nonenglish, and one can reach a consensus concerning their respective translation. --CounterTime (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to wait for that consensus. The problem is your OR that you added in first and second part, and misrepresentation of the mainstream view for the last four words of verse 9.29. I have added summary from two recent English language sources from scholars instead, where they explain the mainstream majority view. We need to include significant minority views, but from WP:RS and if anything is from non-English sources, you must comply with WP:NOENG policies. RLoutfy (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: What? I misinterpreted the mainstream view of 9:29? First this isn't a forum, and so you can't make claims like "the mainstream view..."etc and other forum like expressions. Here we are talking about sources and what concerns the article. I added that view for WP:NPOV, however note that al-Shafi'i states in kitabul Umm that the mainstream view in his view was that it meant that "Islamic rulings are enforced on them.". So both views for WP:NPOV. Ah! I forgot, the section is under the Islamic sources one, so one must provide references to exegesis of the Qur'an (or statements of Muslim scholars commenting on the verse) and not mere opinions of orientalists of what constitutes or not the mainstream opinion. --CounterTime (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the cited pages in the two books? The authors take pains to explain the disagreements in interpretation of 9:29 and then the "majority view". RLoutfy (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Claims of consensus or of a 'majority opinion' may not necessarily be coherent, for example one source can claim that Q.9:29 is about all the people of the book, whereas another may claim that it only addresses those transgressors amongst them (this is just an example). For a complete WP:NPOV (when two editors have conflicting sources) one should mention both claims without stating anything about a 'consensus'. If however I for instance provide cites from various works in the Islamic tafsir literature that confirm a consensus and there are recent scholarly references that go with that side then one should mention it as being a 'consensus'. --CounterTime (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased you agree that the article must summarize two or more significant sides for NPOV, without claiming consensus. I disagree that Islamic tafsir literature has the final say, if that is what you are trying to suggest. If non-Islamic scholars present a different conflicting view in reliable publications, that view must be summarized and the disagreement summarized. I invite you to respect community agreed WP:NOENG policies, along with WP:W2W, WP:CLAIM guidelines. RLoutfy (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: There's a difference between stating what Islamic scholars generally state in the exegesis of Q.9:29 and what orientalists think of it per their own views. Both should be summarized, per WP:NPOV. --CounterTime (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased we agree. I feel we can now begin building consensus language to improve this article with this NPOV guideline in mind. RLoutfy (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Okay, I'm really happy to see you collaborating. You may feel free to edit the second section in this sandbox so that we can reach consensus on it, without engaging in edit wars. What do you think? --CounterTime (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hadith Source (section needs review)

This section has a few errors. I will attempt to highlight a few below along with the suggested solutions. Reeves.ca (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Regarding "Non-Muslims who failed to pay jizya were detained and punished." The hadith(s) you cited are described under a sectioned called "Chapter 31: GRIM WARNING TO ONE WHO TORMENTS PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY VALID JUSTIFICATION." The entire section is about warning against torture of anyone, but more specifically those who do not pay jizya. I recommend the statement be updated to reflect the correct meaning of the hadiths: "Grim warnings to those who torment non-Muslims who failed to pay jizya." Reeves.ca (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. But the valid justification part is important, as "not paying jizya" can be considered a valid justification for torture of non-Muslims. Please note that WP:OR policy of wikipedia requires that we do not interpret and insert personal original research such as "who failed to pay jizya" to the end as you did, because that is not what that title is stating. Will you accept the following addition, "These Shahih Muslim hadiths are part of grim warnings to those who torment people without any valid justification"? RLoutfy (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy You are making the assumption here, not me. You are choosing a "justification" when there is no indication of that in the text. You are freely interpreting the text, which goes against the WP:OR policy of Wikipedia. The hadith comes from "The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship" and the title of the chapter is "GRIM WARNING TO ONE WHO TORMENTS PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY VALID JUSTIFICATION." and the text clearly warns against torturing people who have not paid Jizya - this is not original research, it's the text. So, I don't agree that a simple addition will correct the false statement. Your sentence is misleading as it stands. Reeves.ca (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I completely agree with @Reeves.ca:, if even you read the meant hadiths you would get the point: " Hisham reported on the authority of his father that Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam happened to pass by people, the farmers of Syria, who had been made to stand in the sun. He said: What is the matter with them? They said: They have been detained for Jizya. Thereupon Hisham said: I bear testimony to the fact that I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah would torment those who torment people in the world." and the other hadith " 'Urwa b. Zubair reported that Hisham b. Hakim found a person (the ruler of Hims) who had been detaining some Nabateans in connection with the dues of Jizya. He said: What is this? I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah would torment those persons who torment people in the world." --CounterTime (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: So, we can agree the "'not paying jizya' can be considered valid justification for torture of non-Muslims" is your assumption, which violates WP:OR. Kindly update the sentence to reflect the cited sources. I propose again: "Grim warnings to those who torment non-Muslims who failed to pay jizya" using the same citations. I could update the article myself, but I would rather we work together on this. If you can't make the change, let me know and I'll take care of it. Regards Reeves.ca (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just added the title from the cite under fair use, because making either assumption is WP:OR. RLoutfy (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Being under the Hadith section, this area is intended to answer the question: what does Hadith say about it? The answer, in the way you've worded it, is that non-Muslims should be punished. In fact, the Hadiths warn, they do not encourage as is implied by the statement (even after you edit). It seems like we've reached an impass. What is the process here to reach a resolution? Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Stop distorting and twisting sources, this is a clear violation of WP:POV policies. CounterTime (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Kindly try to assume good faith - I know there's a history between you two, but accusations will not help any of us get to a resolution. Let's keep this focused on the information as much as possible. Much appreciated. Reeves.ca (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Sorry for that. Which wording would you suggest? CounterTime (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: For this collection of Hadiths, I suggest: "Grim warnings against tormenting of non-Muslims who fail to pay jizya"

References

On the Qur'an subsection

This is a copy of the discussion between CounterTime and RLoutfy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CounterTime/sandbox

→ (@Iryna Harpy:, @Reeves.ca: any comments?) _{--CounterTime (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)}

---

→ CounterTime original version of the subsection:

---

Jizya is sanctioned by the Qur'an based on the following verse:

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

— Qur'an, ^{[Quran 9:29]}

1. Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day (qā talū’ lladhī na lā yuʾ minū na bi’ llā hi wa-lā bi’ l-yawmi’ l-ā khir)

Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’, while Mustafa Al-Maraghi comments on it: "fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk." In any case, there is nothing in the Qur'an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone.

2. Do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden (wa-lā yuḥ arrimū na mā ḥ arrama’ llā hu wa-rasū luhu)

The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍāwī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’, since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others. His Messenger in this verse has been interpreted by exegetes as referring to the Prophet Muḥammad or the People of the Book’ s own earlier messengers, Moses or Jesus, but the latter must be the correct interpretation as it is already assumed that the People of the Book did not believe in Muḥammad or forbid what he forbade. They are condemned for not obeying their own prophet, who told them to honour their agreements.

3. Until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.

Here ʿan yad (from/for/at hand), is interpreted by some to mean that they should pay directly, without intermediary and without delay. Others say that it refers to its reception by Muslims and means “generously” as in “with an open hand,” since the taking of the jizya is a form of munificence that averted a state of conflict. M.J. Kister understands 'an yad to be a referrence to the "ability and sufficient means" of the dhimmi. The orientalist Mark Cohen claims that 'while they are subdued' was interpreted by many to mean "humiliated state of the non-Muslims". In contrast, Al-Shafi‘i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of law, explains that a number of scholars explained this last expression to mean that "Islamic rulings are enforced on them."

---

→ RLoutfy's version:

---

Jizya is sanctioned by the Qur'an based on the following verse:

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

— Qur'an, ^{[Quran 9:29]}

Mohammed Ennaji translates this verse as follows,

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.

— Qur'an 9.29,

Ennaji explains that this verse mandates the payment of jizya by the dhimmis, and that most scholars insist that the term "from the hand" implies that the payment of jizya cannot be delegated, but the tax must be paid in person, "arriving on foot, not not horseback", to show his gratitude for having been spared by his conquerors, reflecting and acknowledging his servile position. Mark Cohen remarks, that the exegetical and juristic literature suggests unclarity on what the last four words – wa-hum sāghirūn – in the above verse 9.29 meant, with most interpreting it to imply "humiliated state of the non-Muslims".

---

→ Discussion between the two users: (previous discussion on the talk page here: (1), (2))

---

CounterTime, Please provide a scholarly source of translation of each quote above, or your own translation of non-English quotes above as required by WP:NOENG. You are doing original research and WP:SYNTHESIS above. You need to find a cite that does the interpretation above, and we can then summarize that cite. RLoutfy (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The article "The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, SOAS, University of London, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): pp.72–89, Edinburgh University Press, DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056, # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS" contains a translation of the following sources: "Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30." and "Al-Bayḍawī, Tafsīr (2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), vol. 1, p. 401.", all what remains is a translation of the Tafsir al-Maraghi, Kitabul Umm sources, which can be done by building consensus. I invite you to provide your own translation, and if there are any issues we'll discuss that. CounterTime (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you, for every WP:NOENG quote above. We will make faster progress if you provided a scholarly complete translation or your own complete translation. For now, I have serious concerns that you are inadvertently but in good faith doing OR and Synthesis, something wikipedia policies do not allow. RLoutfy (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Here are the relevant quotes from the article "The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, SOAS, University of London, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): pp.72–89, Edinburgh University Press, DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056, # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS" : "This does not negate the belief of the People of the Book in God, the Prophet and scripture; but rather simply states that they do not act on such belief because they are rebellious. Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’.8 In any case, there is nothing in the Qur’an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone." The footnote 8 is: Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30........ it continues: " It cannot relate to their food or drink, or what they say about God, because these are not given as causes for fighting them, and after paying the jizya they will still be consuming these things and saying these things without being fought. The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍāwī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’ ,11 since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others.12 " and footnote 11: Al-Bayḍawī, Tafsīr (2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), vol. 1, p. 401.

Is it good now? CounterTime (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not good, it suggests that you are doing WP:OR. If you propose a more faithful summary of these sources including Abdel Haleem's paper, I would welcome that as constructive. If you want I can suggest an alternate summary of these sources and the alternate cites I added. RLoutfy (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Why it isn't good? I literally just quoted what was stated in M.A.S. Abdel Haleem's paper: The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, SOAS, University of London, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): pp.72–89, Edinburgh University Press, DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056, # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS" Which quote do you have a problem with? CounterTime (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, Here is what Abdel Haleem writes in the abstract of the article you cite (I am quoting parts, and not quoting it entirely to avoid copyvio issues),

The jizya verse has been the basis of a huge amount of writing by Muslims in Islamic law and Qur'anic exegesis, and by non-Muslim scholars writing about Islam. (....) Such analysis will demonstrate that the picture that has been made of this verse, based on various historical contingencies, both by Muslim exegetes and jurists and non-Muslim writers, is far removed from the actual picture as given in the Qur'an itself.

Abdel Haleem is admitting that "there is huge amount of writing on jizya verse" and "both Muslim and non-Muslim writers" have a different view than his new research. Wikipedia summarizes widely held scholarly views to be encyclopedic, not WP:PRIMARY new research of one scholar such as Abdel Haleem or WP:FRINGE. What you have added is WP:OR, and undue. You do not have consensus to add what you did, and just like you deleted what I added to that section claiming WP:BRD consensus issues, please respect the same rules as wiki rules apply to you as much as me. RLoutfy (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The original dispute was about WP:NOENG policies, I cited Abdel Haleem's article to support the translations. Anything other than that strays from the subject, which would render your objections void and hence I have the complete right to reintroduce the text into the section. Your allegation that I didn't include multiple views from Muslim and non-Muslim writers are completely wrong, see for instance the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister that I included. (this is just an example) If you have any objections concerning the translation, you're welcome to discuss them, otherwise don't try to stray from the original point of dispute. Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You respecting WP:NOENG is step 1. Now you need to read and respect other wikipedia content policies. Since you are a relatively new account, try getting guidance on this at WP:TEAHOUSE. You can't do original research, nor include undue/fringe content. That is our dispute #2 in this matter. RLoutfy (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I didn't include WP:OR, and as I said for WP:NPOV I mentioned multiple opinions (some from Muslim scholars, and others from non-Muslim orientalists), e.g. the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister. (As you can note I'm already familiar with WP policies, and I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015) CounterTime (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: BTW you still have to explain why you told me to find another secondary source that translates the arabic sources, in other words, why is my translation wrong according to you? Explain yourself. CounterTime (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. I am not here to explain myself or engage in forum like discussion. Try teahouse, you will get the help you need on what is original research, and why wikipedia avoids undue/fringe content. Alternatively, try DRN. RLoutfy (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I don't any help concerning WP policies, I already know them. As it seems now it's you who can't respect them and starts evading objections. So please cooperate: answer the following

I didn't include WP:OR, and as I said for WP:NPOV I mentioned multiple opinions (some from Muslim scholars, and others from non-Muslim orientalists), e.g. the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister. (As you can note I'm already familiar with WP policies, and I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015) CounterTime (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: BTW you still have to explain why you told me to find another secondary source that translates the arabic sources, in other words, why is my translation wrong according to you? Explain yourself. CounterTime (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

- below RLoutfy is referring to his edit

You deleted the above even though it is based on scholarly cites, from the November 18 version. RLoutfy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I already told you why I 'deleted' it (actually I added the Mark Cohen cite in my own version), here. BTW why add another translation when one already mentioned the Yusuf trans? It seems you're trying to make POV pushing. CounterTime (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you are a relatively new account, you might be confused about this. Whenever, multiple translations are provided or multiple views are included with cites, it is the exact opposite of POV pushing. Not taking sides, summarizing multiple sides is proof of WP:NPOV. As a compromise, I am willing to add one or two summary sentences about Abdel Haleem's disagreement with the majority view along with the above. Would that be acceptable to you? RLoutfy (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I repeat, I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015. The mere fact that you claim that there's -- to you -- an established consensus (with your two sources) and that everything else should be read as being a 'disagreement with the majority view' (including the 7 or so references I added) is by itself POV pushing. (And I remind you, this isn't a forum where you can engage in discussions over which is the majority opinion and which isn't) As I said earlier in the jizya talk page claims of consensus or of a 'majority opinion' may not necessarily be coherent, for example one source can claim that Q.9:29 is about all the people of the book, whereas another may claim that it only addresses those transgressors amongst them (this is just an example). For a complete WP:NPOV (when two editors have conflicting sources) one should mention both claims without stating anything about a 'consensus'. If however I for instance provide cites from various works in the Islamic tafsir literature that confirm a consensus and there are recent scholarly references that go with that side then one should mention it as being a 'consensus'.

I'm waiting for your answers to the failed allegations you presented above, don't escape from them and try to cooperate. Thanks CounterTime (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

References