Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 4

message: I know this has been discussed before, but the YusufAli translation of  sa:ghiru:na (the last word of Sura 9:29) as' feel themselves subdued' is just not right.  It minimizes the force of the Arabic original' meaning, which is 'humbled, humiliated, belittled'.  It means literally to make something tiny or feel tiny.  It does NOT mean 'feel yourself subdued'.  'Subdue' means to overcome in a fight, not to make tiny.  Aminz has pushed for the YusufAli translation, but it's wrong.  Arberry, which is more objective, would be a better option.  He just says 'humbled', which is about as neutral a translation in English as you can get for this.  Because this verse carries so much weight of history, it should at least be given the dignity of a straightfoward translation, and not be moudled, softened and veiled by this poor translation.Eagleswings 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'feel themselves subdued' (Sura 9:29) 

message: Islam orgininated in tribal society where women become property of the husband and join the husband tribe.
To this day many Mulsim Hamula's have a tradition in which they take women from the outside (and usually have to pay for them) but they refuse to let their women marry outside the hamula (clan/tribe). In this way they ensure the grouth of the hamulla. This is a logical step to any group who wants self preservation and have the resources to "buy/import" more women. Zeq 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real reason why mulsim women can not marry non mulsim men 

message: Step 1) Check if a section on Criticism already written.
Step 2) Rename that section to Humiliating nature 
Step 3) Remove any defensive point mention in that section so that it could be totally one sided.
For example see same thing happened to Jizya article in last few days. CHECK THIS. 
Step 4) (may be executed in future) Now changing the introduction is easy. Hence change the intro with one sided material.
The article is ready.. Please do not let anyone revert it back. --- Faisal 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was a productive purpose served by your latest post, it escapes me. - Merzbow 05:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That means above thing have been done with jizya article, in the last week or so. They are making it similar to Dhimmi and ending its neutrality. Why it is difficult to understand? --- Faisal 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i understand you don't like the way jizya and dhimmi are writen. Complain about jizya artical on its talk page. Now Motga5 raised complaints about the artical and i rebutted them, i'm asking if you have any counter arguments or are you going to admit the nature of dhimmi (and by default jizya and other such discriminations).Hypnosadist 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To answer your questions and read your argument first I have to know that your intensions are good and you are a fair person (not biased towards Islam). I am not saying that you are but generally I am getting really hard time these days with this part of thinking. I have given very fair answers to many people and still unable to convince them. My believes on human beings are getting shaky. I used to believe that everyone is good/fair person and we have different view only because we have different set of knowledge. But now I have to rethink about my views. I have told people that see a paragraph #-abc had obvious mistake that everyone can see. They do not listen. Now tell me why I should answer you when I am not sure about you in the first place? Should not it be waste of my time and more frustration for me? --- Faisal 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Faisal, your comment above is a personal attack and failure to assume good faith. You may want to reconsider your approach to editing and talking to other editors. Pecher Talk 11:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pecher I have not made any personal attack and it is a general view. If you think it is a personal attack then report me Please. --- Faisal 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide to make an article disputed and NON-NEUTRAL 

message: The intro has a line i feel is factually inaccurate and that is "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India between the 7th century, when dhimma was first introduced, and the mid-19th — early 20th century, when the dhimma was abolished.". As i say above When and by Whom, and on What authority? My idea is its going to be the British Empire defeating the Ottoman Empire in WW1 and just after that "abolished" dhimmi, but lets see what better minds think. If you go to Islamonline and search for dhimmi you get thousands of hits, in the fatwah bank 3639 entries, the cyber cousilor has 2556 and live fatwah has a small number of 822. As i have been saying for weeks dhimmi is not a historical concept its alive and well and deciding how Muslims live there lives. I'm going to deleate this line tomorrow unless a discusion to find a concensus on this is started.Hypnosadist 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one thing I'm unsure about also, but this claim appears to be sourced, so I don't see any justification for deleting it unless you can show that it in fact does not appear in the referenced sources. Countries like Saudi Arabia are certainly enforcing some of the dhimma restrictions, but I don't think they are actually claiming their non-Muslim citizens are dhimmis. Again, the best way to improve this article is by adding sourced POVs, not by deleting. - Merzbow 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dhimma was abolished in the 19th and early 20th century, either through Westernizing reforms, like Tanzimat, or through Western colonization; only in Yemen did dhimma last until the Jews fled to Israel at about 1950. Technically, religious minorities in Muslim countries are not dhimmis nowadays, even though they usually suffer discrimination. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has no non-Muslim citizens at all, only non-Muslim guest workers, and the latter don't count as dhimmis, who are by definition subjects of a Muslim state. Pecher Talk 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortly before the invasion, the taliban had talked about making non-muslims wear distinctive clothing.  Perhapse there are also nations out there today that restrict intermarriage.  One might ba able to make a case of dhimmi laws influencing modern laws, if properly researched.  But are there modern people who are treated like the dhimmis of the ottoman empire?  I don't know...  I'm worried that if you broaden the use of the term dhimmi too much it looses meaning.--Dr.Worm 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, the impact of dhimmi laws on the legislation in modern Muslim countries could make an interesting new section. Pecher Talk 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That would make a great new section.  We can discuss how most Muslim-majority states don't implement Sharia with consistency, how this benefits non-Muslims, how Islamists are re-implementing Sharia on a local level and calling for it on a national level, and how this impacts non-Muslims.Timothy Usher 07:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently there is no Islamic state and Sharia is not implemented any where in the world. Most Muslim believe that true Cahilpate is ended after the Rashidun. --- Faisal 07:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The true Caliphate wouldn't be content with taxing and humiliating Dhimmi, but would behead them, seize their properties and enslave their women and children, as did Muhammad, or expel them as did Umar.Timothy Usher 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you would like to write the article using good references and till Rashidun then it would be great. And I will highly appreciate it. However, if you would decide to do that then avoid using someone who is famously known as extremly biased in whole islamic world like Bernard Lewis. It is easy to just say anything without references like you have done above. I consider it a personal attack on me and my religion. Please avoid doing that in the future as you might know that there is wikipedia policy against it.  --- Faisal 07:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Faisal, you may want to start an Islamopedia, where you will be able to push your ahistorical POV that the article "Dhimmi" must not extend beyond Rashidun entirely unopposed. This is, however, Wikipedia, a secular encyclopedia, where the policy on reliable sources applies, even if these sources say something you dislike. Pecher Talk 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pecher I advice you to understand Neutral_Point_of_View. Then you can write articles that have you POV and still I am satisified. For example see OBL article. I do not believe that he has to do anything with 9/11 but still I like that article a lot. Because it is written from neutral point of view. It is not helpful when you made conclusion in the introduction and do not let anyone else to contribute. I have contributed in many article but cannot do any contribution in this article because of you and you team. I know, I am wasting my time. but may be there is 0.000001% chance that you can understand what I said above. best wishes --- Faisal 07:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Faisal, you haven't made a single contribution to the article using reliable sources. Your talk page edits consist mainly of declarations of edit war, attempts to recruit other people to be on your side in the edit war that you are waging, and attacks aimed at those who disagree with you. From this evidence, I cannot see any value in your contributions to Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your kind comments. --- Faisal 10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Imply to whereever you like. Imply it to XYZ and WFT. Pecher says that I cannot see any value in your contributions to Wikipedia. Also imply it to something. --- Faisal 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also imply this. Pecher said Faisal, you may want to start an Islamopedia, where you will be able to push your ahistorical POV --- Faisal 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen your user page, I can see how a reasonable observer might arrive at that perception.Timothy Usher 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhimmi was abolished? When and by whom, and on what authority? 

message: Pecher, you keep deleting information that somebody is trying to add that is sourced from a book called "History of Damascus" by Ibn Asaker. This appears to be a real book, so I'm puzzled why you consider it original research? - Merzbow 06:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's a real book in English, what are its ISBN, publisher, year etc? From what I know "History of Damascus" is a huge series in Arabic, but this is an English Wikipedia with plenty of English-language literature on the subject; I don't use any source in Russian or Ukrainian, do I? Secondly, I don't dispute that new converts fought in wars on the Arab side. However, the mere fact of their fighting sheds no light on the speed of conversion of Christains; obviously, some converted early, while most people did not. The material that the anon is trying to insert into the intro is thus entirely superfluous. Pecher Talk 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember the Rule: Every source which say thing not liked by them is an Orginal research. --- Faisal 13:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  A couple points. First, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources explicitly states that non-English sources can be used in certain circumstances. Second, one could argue that sources of Middle Eastern origin are especially relevant to this subject (unlike Russian or Ukranian sources). That being said, the aforementioned page does imply that the bar is very high for directly referencing non-English sources. I invite the person who added this reference to provide more detailed information about this book - publisher, country of origin, etc. - and provide the original-language sentences and his translation (unless there is a published English-language translation that can be used). - Merzbow 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History of Damascus" info is original research? 

message: I'm reposting my comments about the intro saying dhimmi was abolished. This is because it got drowned out in an argument that had Nothing to do with my question, so here we are again.
The intro has a line i feel is factually inaccurate and that is "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India between the 7th century, when dhimma was first introduced, and the mid-19th — early 20th century, when the dhimma was abolished.". As i say above When and by Whom, and on What authority? My idea is its going to be the British Empire defeating the Ottoman Empire in WW1 and just after that "abolished" dhimmi, but lets see what better minds think. If you go to Islamonline and search for dhimmi you get thousands of hits, in the fatwah bank 3639 entries, the cyber cousilor has 2556 and live fatwah has a small number of 822. As i have been saying for weeks dhimmi is not a historical concept its alive and well and deciding how Muslims live there lives.
First let me say this is about the word ABOLISHED not the fact that dhimmi rules stopped being enforced. If there was a religious ruleing to say that these laws where not to be enforced then they were ABOLISHED. That word contains some moral judgement in it as in the Abolision of Slavery or Death Penalty, ie things that we now know are bad. If on the other hand these laws like slavery were stopped by British force of arms then the artical should state that. The final option is that they were abolished by a secularish state but that this concept is still active in Modern Religious thought. 
But the current wording leaves the reader with the opinion that this concept stopped at the end of the 19c, which it patently did not.Hypnosadist 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. A concept told by Quran cannot be abolished. However, currently it is not implement anywhere because there is not Islamic state in the world and secondly, the propoganda presented by article like humilation of Dhimmi is misleading (so the concept is presented in a very wrong way). If you remove the word abolish then it will give impression that it will be restored the way it is presented in the article. Hence first correct the article then remove the abolish word. --- Faisal 18:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with Hypnosadist that "abolished" here means that dhimmi laws stopped being enforced. This happened after a series of reforms, such as Tanzimat, usually conducted under severe European pressure, or after European colonization when non-Muslim subjects finally received equal status. Pecher Talk 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  There cannot be more than one Islamic state at a given time. It is against the definition of Islamic state. The Islamic state is govern by a Caliph and according to Muslims belief there cannot be two or more Caliphs.  --- Faisal 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert it back as even you ibrahimfaisil admit that dhimmi has not been abolished so this MUST go as it is Unencyclopedic. Just because you don't like the artical the way it is now there is no need to Lie in it.Hypnosadist 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I am against abolish word because a reader my infer that Dhimmi law are gone for ever. This is the fact that it will be implemented again when/if the Caliphate is restored. However, The change you have done is even more wrong than abolish word because it tells reader that it is still in practice (and in practice in the evil way descibed in the article). It is not in practice anywhere in the world. I will support better word than abolish but cannot support your current change. I will wait for your reply and then revert it back. --- Faisal 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be saying that Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because 1) most Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law, although Islamists would like them to be 2) In many regions, there are hardly any Dhimmi left.  Would that work for you, Faisal?Timothy Usher 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  May be this time we have second agreement. I agree with first one (#1). Change it please. Thank you. --- Faisal 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have ALL agreed the word abolished should go, its gone and staying gone. I understand your concerns about the article but they are your POV about how nice or not being a dhimmi is, or who has the authority to say who is dhimmi and how to enforced. But they are your POV and many people (Particularly many muslim's) disagree. Hypnosadist 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Because you are unable to read (or understand) my concern, I have posted above I am posting them again in bold. You keep saying my concern about article has nothing to do with oblish. Forget my concern about the article the word is still neccessary. I post my concern here again (from above).  Yes, I am against abolish word because a reader my infer that Dhimmi law are gone for ever. This is the fact that it will be implemented again when/if the Caliphate is restored. However, The change you have done is even more wrong than abolish word because it tells reader that it is still in practice (and in practice in the evil way descibed in the article). It is not in practice anywhere in the world. I will support better word than abolish but cannot support your current change. I will wait for your reply and then revert it back. --- Faisal 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law. That much is enough. Other thing is just POV. --- Faisal 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you. --- Faisal 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you added was pure unsourced speculation, and thus I removed it. - Merzbow 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it pure speculation to notice a link between the demise of the Caliphate and the decline in the observance of Dhimma.  But I agree it needs a source.Timothy Usher 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Onwords" that you have added is also pure unsourced speculation and also wrong. Onwords means it is still in place. Where is your reference for that? Hence it is better to have correct thing with  tag. Then uncorrect your version with no tag. Hence I am changing it back and puting  tag in front of it. Also we (Timithy, Hypnosadist and me) after days of talks here as well as on our User pages agreed on this change. After so much effort you come and change what we have agreed on. Why could not you be part of the talks earlier? --- Faisal 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it to "from the 7th century until modern times". This still needs to be sourced, but I cannot leave "Dhimma is mostly not active after the defeat of the Ottomans because Muslim-majority states are no longer ruled by Islamic law" because not only is that unsourced original research, it is egregiously wrong. Millions of Saudia Arabians would disagree that they are not living under Sharia law. - Merzbow 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here is that "mostly not active" isn't qualified, and isn't sourced.  Of course Sharia law is implemented in several regions.  "Mostly not" is relative to the Caliphates, which ruled much larger territories with many more Dhimmi.  A specific and sourced description of the state of Dhimma in modern times would be desirable.Timothy Usher 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you claim that Dhimmi is still active in Saudia. Any reference. Do they pay Jizya (in much more greater amount than Zikat)? I wish if you could talk for a while and try to convince other people. Instead you like to first change and then post a message. Stop following: I have done it and now here is a notification.  --- Faisal 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the Saudi Arabia: "The central institution of Saudi Arabian Government is the Saudi monarchy. The Basic Law adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud, and that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a)... Legislation is by resolution of the Council of Ministers, ratified by royal decree, and must be compatible with the Shari'a (Islamic law)." - Merzbow 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason there's no Dhimma in SA (to my knowledge) is that Sharia has also been construed such that Jews and Christians may not permanently reside in the Arabian Penninsula.Timothy Usher 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No non-Muslim can enter is some specific cities like Medina. Even for a single day. However, there is lots of non-Muslims (even Americans) in Saudia. Anyway you agree that it is not applied there in SA (reason does not matter)? Obviously if Jizya is applied in any part of the world then CNN/BBC and other have lots of articles against that. Also so called Humman-rights organization should be publishing material on it. Google search does not show that articles like these exist. --- Faisal 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your opinion of these links?, , , ,  Timothy Usher 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Non-Muslims can live in Saudi Arabia - there are hundreds of thousands of Christians, for example - but they are not dhimmis, but guests.  Not subjects of the state.  This is a different category from the dhimmi.  If there were dhimmis in Saudi Arabia they would be allow to build churches, but they cannot. The dhimma has not applied in Saudi Arabia since the expulsion of Jews  and the conversion of the Christian Arab tribes to Islam  in the years after the death of Muhammad.  This was in accordance with the hadith - from Muhammad's deathbed - that there cannot be two religions in Arabia. The whole dhimma systesm was not completely abolished in the 19th and 20th century - dhimma regulations still influence the legal codes of many Islamic states - but the actually jizya tax system and formal distinction of dhimmis as  a separate class of citizens was done away with by the Ottomans in the mid-19th century, under European pressure.  In other places (e.g. Yemen) the dhimma lasted into the 20th century. Eagleswings 10:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is clear from all the accounts I have seen that dhimmis could not build new Churches or even repair old ones.  So it is unlikely that they could in Saudi Arabia - which does not allow non-Muslims to settle because of that whole "no two religion" thing, so if there were dhimmis in SA they would have to leave or become Muslims.  The Ottomans did not do away with it - they renamed the jizyah and the Dhimmis went on paying it rather than being brutalised in the Turkish Army.  Lao Wai 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That military exemption tax existed for some time, but subsequently was also abolished. Pecher Talk 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last call for the word '''Abolished''' 

message: Bless sins revert's rationale "The quote by the Prophet of Islam needs to be emphasized" clearly underlines the edit's aim of promoting a view instead of following encyclopedical demand. Claiming that the "humiliation section is filled with redundancies" is taken as pretext to do the same in this section, which is unwarranted as well. That the humiliation section is filled with "quotes of mere [...] scholars" clearly states the unwillingness to abide encyclopedical basics, which decidedly favours sourced scholarly erudition. Claiming that the cited scholars are "unimportant" needs to be substantiated, and, if so, addressed in that section. You certainly will have difficulties with these: 
Bernard Lewis,
Norman Stillman,
Al-Nawawi,
Al-Ghazali,
Al-Tabari,
Bat Ye'or and
Ibn Kathir. As for the others, please argue. Amibidhrohi's added argument, that "Separating Muhammad's view from practice gives us contrast between the ideal situation and actual practice" is WP:OR and POV, and if he "think[s it] is better", that's his POV as well. Please back that up authoritatively. Quoting a hadith to make a point is OR and POV anyway, and yes, most articles on Islam are riddled with that. A shortcoming to be addressed, no argument for perpetuation. --tickle me 07:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the scholars are as important in explaining or determining Islam as Muhammad himself. His impact on Islam is profound, and whatever he says, it's the official policy in Islam (ask anyone). If one looks at the humilation section, one sees that every example of  humiliation is emphasized, though the scholars that urge kindess are not. And now the quote of the Prophet (and founder) of Islam is once again de-emphasized, because it promotes something humane. Bless sins 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's set once and for all for this, as well as other Islam-related articles, that it's original research to quote the Qur'an and the hadith and draw conclusions from these quotes. We can only quote scholars from reliable sources to show how the Qur'an and the hadith were interpreted. It is only the interpretation and Islamic law that matter; the holy texts per se are just sources of law, but not law. Pecher Talk 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many editors have come to falsely believe that a neutral point of view means compromising between the view of reliable sources and their own views or completely unsourced generic views (e.g. the "Muslim view") which, naturally, they are qualified to represent.Timothy Usher 08:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not anymore original research to quote from the Quran and hadith to quote from some scholarly book. To say that a verse of hadith means something, without porper referneces, is, however, original research.Bless sins 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you saying it means something when you place it above well-sourced interpretations of Islamic law?  Not only should original research not be presented, it shouldn't underlie our manner or order of presentation of sourced materials, either.Timothy Usher 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal safety and massacres 

message: Modern times in the introduction still has citation needed i'm suggesting http://memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SP110306 which was posted above and seams appropriate. What do other editors think?Hypnosadist 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it.Timothy Usher 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not nice to quote one cuntry one instance or few... There are more than 50 Muslim countries. --- Faisal 11:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am out of time now for today. Can you please wait for sometime (at least 24 hours) before going ahead with the change? I would like to take a close look at the above URL and want to read it completely. Furthermore, I want to investigate the author of the write-up and his affiliation/neutrality. I will then get back to you. Thanking you in anticipation. --- Faisal 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for modern times in the introduction 

message: Can we please talk about this here. I think the section was overly long with a lot of repeat information. I think that we only need two or three quotes here but the current edit has a very POV use of quotes out of context. The Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Maghili quote is cut down so much as to be almost meaningless. This quote should in my opinion be in full and first as it contains a lot of information about both physical reality of dhimma and the mind-set there of. Then you could just say that the following theologians agree with this such as Al-Nawawi , Muhammad_ibn_Jarir_al-Tabari and Al-Ghazali and give the apropriate quotes. OK Discuss people.Hypnosadist 17:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the obligation to say something falls upon those who are repeatedly removing sourced material.Timothy Usher 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at both of the passages at dispute in the current edit war - the Malik quote and the Humiliation info. I think the expanded versions of both deserve to stay in the article; they do not make either of the sections they are in overly long in my opinion. How about it? - Merzbow 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why no answers here? Is that mean there is no use to talk? --- Faisal 09:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer has been given several times: the quote is repetitive and the most important part of it has been retained. Pecher Talk 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Malik quote is repetitive, the large quotes in the Humiliation section are doubly so. We need to have the same standard in both places. - Merzbow 17:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose to wait for a feedback from the editor who has added most of these quotes. Pecher Talk 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So it looks like the expanded versions of both selections of quotes should stay then. - Merzbow 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Malik quote is important as a very early report of how the jizya was levied.  I have edited this quote, and reordered paragraphs in the whole section to make it all flow much better - the earlier edits, including the insertion of the Malik quote had made it all somewhat garbled. Eagleswings 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war in Humiliation