Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 3

message: I believe we should add the original research tag to this article because:
1. In my POV, One but not the only disputed passage is for example the following(in the "Sources of dhimma" part)
"The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against the People of the Book until they pay the jizya head tax and are humbled:
:Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
I disagree with usage of the word "humbled" and taking this passage out of the context(the first sentence does not mention the context of the verse and to my mind contains original research). There are many disputed passages. 
2. For the same reason that the article is tagged to be totally disputed. (Here I mean, while we are not sure if the article is neutral and factual, we have the tag, likewise, when we are not sure if the article contains original research, we should have the tag.)
Thanks --Aminz 23:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, can you please add the tag to the article. The tag just says "the article MAY contain ..."  which is my position. Were I aware of this tag, I would have added it to the article long ago. thanks --Aminz 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research Tag 

message: Many things in the article are wrong and at least written in very wrong way. My guess is that the article is written by someone who hate Islam and want to make propoganda against Islam. --- Faisal 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you can see both neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed. --Aminz 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with this article is that they mixed diversion/sins of Muslims with the rules of Islam given by Quran and Sunnah. The article should be written according to what is allowed by Quran, Sunnah. What happened after 200 or 500 years should be mention separately or NOT at all. See according to Islam one cannot tell lie, now If I have to write an article with name "Islam and Lie" and I start saying that early Muslims never used to tell lie but then after 8 century they starting telling lie. Instead of saying what Quran and Sunnah say that is telling lie is a greatest sin according to Islam and not at all acceptable Then I am simply misguiding people, which is exactly this article is doing. Why you want to confuse the reader. If you want to write information which is not allowed according to Quran and Sunnah then makes a separate section on Histroy and Dhimmi and write you propaganda there. In this article please write what is allowed according to Islam and What Quran and Sunnah says (full stop). I know that you media (Cnn/Fox/BBC...) and Govt. has polluted your mind and you really believe that there were force conversions etc. May be there are force conversion by some "evil" Muslims (may be there are also in Christianity) but the real question is that if that was allowed according to Quran and Sunnah. (It is not allowed)  If you really hate Islam and confuse reader then continue the way you are doing. Otherwise, limit that article to Quran and Sunnah (and may be to first four Chaliph called Rashidun) ONLY. I will rewrite the whole article after my exams on 28th May. This article is simply not acceptable and a big mess... ---- Faisal 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I look forward to your contribution to this collaborative process. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Tom Harrison Talk 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Islam is also a religion in the real world, and the way it is practised is relevant to articles about it; that practices carried out in the name of Islam may in fact contravene the precepts of Islam is something that can be mentioned, bearing in mind first of all that those practices are nevertheless relevant to the question under discussion, secondly the need for reliable sources, and thirdly the fact that there are many different interpretations of the shar3i requirements in different spheres. Palmiro | Talk 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I know. I write research papers where one cannot say anything without having good references (no original research). I will like do same here and but after my exams. regards --- Faisal 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I am NOT agree with what Palmiro is saying. Yes! Islam is the religion in the real world but it was not pactice fully all the time. (For example there is NO Islamic Sunni state nowadays). So We will quote only early Islam (when it was followed fully Rashidun) beside discussing Quran and Sunnah in the main article and leave rest of things out of the article. You can create seperate article may be, were you mention histroy when people are doing things AGAINST Islam/Quran/Sunnah. --- Faisal 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we won't. Islam is not only a theological system, but according to the din wa daula principle inherently a social and political system as well. It's impact on society always we'll be a subject of this article. "it was not pactice fully all the time": That reality didn't coincide with the numerous Islamic factions over the times is mentioned and is to be mentioned when describing the reality of Islam in the world. We're not here to describe the ideals of Islamic theology disregarding of implementation and execution. And we certainly won't attain to wahhabi interpretation as you suggest. --tickle me 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not good. Why you want to mention things that were AGAINST Quran and Sunnah. And not only mention them but MIX them in the main article so that no one can understand the TRUE message of Islam. Why you cannot separate these two things, so that if the reader has to know what Islam says he can understand it clearly. Why you cannot mention history when people had done things AGAINST Islam separately? I think that by reading the current article a new user will say Quran and Sunnah was wrong istead of condomning the act of few misguided people. BTW I am not a wahabi. However, I will gather support by telling all the Muslims on wikipedia and around me (not member of wikipedia), if I am not allowed to correct it myself.  ---- Faisal 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As hard as it may be for you to believe, Wikipedia does not exist to promote the 'true message of Islam'. If that's what you want to do, there are plenty of other websites where you can do this. --- 24.6.237.202 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Article 

message: A link to the [Pact of Omar]article and references to it as the source of Dhimmi status must be included once this edit war is completed--Dr.Worm 07:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again.  It's there.Timothy Usher 08:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see it!  Sorry about that.  My fault for using the anglicized spelling of Omar.--Dr.Worm 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pact of Omar information needs to be included 

message: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=51648639&oldid=51615364 for the changes I have made. 
The fact tag was added to intro since in Farhansher's edit, the literal meaning of "Dhimmi" was  "protected" and in Pecher's was  "tutelage". This was reflected in my edit summaries. Pecher removed this.
"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. " 
was changed to 
"Dhimmis were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property. They had to pay a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various restrictions and legal disabilities. "
Because if one looks closely, he could see an implicit unsourced (p => q) in the first sentence. Again this was reflected in my edit summaries.
Section title "==== Aleged Humiliation of dhimmis====" vs "==== Humiliation of dhimmis===="
The sub-titles should not pursuade the reader to any position as the title of the articles should not. Readers can read the text and end up in whatever conclusion they want.
I added the fact tag was added to "Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will" since it talks about "Islamic Law". We have 5 schools of Islamic Laws. This sentence is general and unreferenced. 
Thanks --Aminz 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: It struck me that 1) everything here could justifiably appear in another section 2) points in other sections also fell under "humiliation" 3) the section title was disputed with no adequate solution - it's better to keep them material and objective - if they're being humiliated during taxation, then this belongs in Taxation, if they're being humilated on the road, this belongs in Travel.  However, I'm not clear that my rearrangement is the right solution.  Hack away.Timothy Usher 09:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If humiliation is importain to the status of a dhimmi, then it seems importaint to highilt the fact in it's own section as long as there is no redundency.--Dr.Worm 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killed "Humiliation" section 

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

message: I don't get how the "Marriage" and "Travel" sections are anymore "Social and Psychological" than "Legal".  I accept that there might be a higher-level arrangement of sections, but I'm not satisfied that the current (or former) one makes much sense.Timothy Usher 09:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with some of your recent rearrangements, I feel that such a comprehensive step on contended issues is unwarranted. Not to engage in edit wars again, I'd prefer you to rather go back to Aminz' version (with which I don't agree either necessarily), applying one of the many changes you intend afterwards, so we can deal with it item by item. Best, however, would be to just revert, so issues with Aminz can be dealt with on talk first. When that is settled, we should move on. --tickle me 10:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Upon reflection, I agree that there were many problems with it.  Let's work on addressing them. Done, although preserving some of the edits since then.  I'm not sure the currect version is great, but things like humiliation of Dhimmis on the street simply didn't belong in "travel."  I want to make sure the article has some coherence, and looking at it fresh today, I'm just not confident that my changes helped in this regard.Timothy Usher 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section arrangement 

message: The previous definition is obsolete as it is an archaic usage for a time when slavery was practiced. Dhimmitude in modern Islamic countries has nothing to do with issues of slavery or who is "free" and "not free" (i.e. slaves.) SouthernComfort 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article is about historical circumstances, rather than about dhimmitude in its present-day expressions, although dhimmitude is an important subject in its own right.  The term 'free' is essential to include, for not all non-Muslims in an Islamic society were dhimmis.  Very many were slaves, and these were not dhimmis!  In any case, slavery is not yet obsolete! Eagleswings 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of dhimmi 

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

message: What Many non-Muslim authors says about Dhimmi (I will update the article tomorrow with these).
Testimony of Western Historians
Welldiorant says:
::    "The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays. They were free to practice their rituals. They maintained their churches and synagogues and the only obligation was that they should wear a special color and pay tax for every person pro rata his income. This sum ranged between two and four dinars. This tax was exclusively levied on non-Muslims who can go to war. However priests, women, children, slaves, elderly men, the disabled, the blind and the destitute were exempted from the tax. Dhimmis were exempted from military service in return. They were also exempted from zakat which is 2.5% of the annual income and the government was bound to protect them."[The History of Civilization (131/12)]
Adam Mitz in his book The Islamic Civilization says:
::    "Dhimmis used to pay jizya each pro rata his income. Jizya was similar to national defense tax as it was only paid by men who can go to war while the disabled, priests, clergy were exempted unless they have wealth."  [The Islamic Civilization (96/1)]
Thomas Arnold in his The Preaching of Islam says:
::    "The purpose of levying this tax on Christians as reiterated by some researchers was not a form of punishment for not accepting Islam. They rather used to pay it with the remaining dhimmis namely non-Muslims subjects of the Islamic state whose beliefs prevent them from joining the military service in return for the protection secured to them by Muslims' swords." [The Preaching of Islam]
--- Faisal 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Muslim saying about Dhimmi 

message: re sentence: "The medieval Quranic commentator Ibn Kathir, describing the consensus opinion of Muslim scholars, justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an."; 
re :"describing the consensus opinion of Muslim scholars" either please clarify how current reference says this or find new references. (though this is possibly true).
re: "justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an"; 
seems that the current reference justifies jizya rather than dhimmitude + please clarify how this source says that "justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an" (exclusively). Thanks. Aminz
:: Tafseer of two different person could be different. I do not get that when I cannot use any reference of any islamic website in favor of jizya then why they can use islamic website references against jizya. --- Faisal 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another citation needed 

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

message: Based on the following from Jewish Encyclopedia + from other possible sources:
"The different tendencies in the codifications are shown in divergences in the decrees attributed to the prophet. While one reads, "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" ("Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133), people with fanatical views haveput into the mouth of the prophet such words as these: "Whoever shows a friendly face to a dhimmi is like one who deals me a blow in the side" (Ibn Ḥajar al-Haitami, "Fatawi Ḥadithiyyah," p. 118, Cairo, 1307). Or: "The angel Gabriel met the prophet on one occasion, whereupon the latter wished to take his hand. Gabriel, however, drew back, saying: 'Thou hast but just now touched the hand of a Jew.' The prophet was required to make his ablutions before he was allowed to take the angel's hand" (Dhahabi, "Mizan al-I'tidal," ii. 232, 275). These and similar sayings, however, were repudiated by the Mohammedan ḥadithcritics themselves as false and spurious. They betray the fanatical spirit of the circle in which they originated. Official Islam has even tried to turn away from Jews and Christians the point of whatever malicious maxims have been handed down from ancient times. An old saying in regard to infidels reads: "If ye meet them in the way, speak not to them and crowd them to the wall." When Suhail, who relates this saying of the prophet, was asked whether Jews and Christians were intended, he answered that this command referred to the heathen ("mushrikin"; "Musnad Aḥmad," ii. 262)."
Any feedback? --Aminz 07:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An addition: A section/paragraph for quotes forged and attributed to Muhammad regarding Dhimmi's