Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 5

message: I see lots of political correctness claim by people who try to neutralise the discrimanting facts on Dhimmi.  As long as the religion court refuse Dhimmi rights to testify on court, it is discriminate and violation of human rights. I see some people keep pouring more and more diversion by claiming some source "unreliable". Bad news to them : this will not change the facts.
I don't see how this article "demonise" some religion. Indeed, this is historical facts. Today, if those country that worship the religion fail to "correct" the conditions of Dhimmi, I don't see why we should write "softer tone" over that particular religion. So all facts about discrimination upon Dhimi should stay. Sltan 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of dhimma is discriminatory in its most basic sense.  It creates a legal distinction between Muslims and others.  Is it a violation of human rights?  Whose human rights? and which instantiations of dhimma have violated them.  The main problem I see is that many sources both Muslim and non-Muslim try to decomplexify the issue by conflating all instances of this system as either positive or negative in either an absolute or relative sense.  This is of course problematic because in a relative sense dhimma has been preferable to other systems of the time while at other times it has been worse.  Example:  Ottoman Jews in the mid to late 1800s were discriminated against under the dhimma system.  This was relatively good compared to the situations of pogroms in Eastern Europe this there began to be immigration of Jews to Ottoman land that had been oppressed under the European system (and those fleeing the pogroms were not necessarily Zionists).  Relative to modern Western human rights standards Ottoman practice was a violation of human rights.  Many instantiations of dhimma today are human rights violations.  The problem is, the system is not homogenous and directed under a singular law... it varied immensely from place and time and what you get in the more popular readings on it is a highly politicized debate trying to represent the nature of Islam.  This is to a great extent anthropology (or ethnography) and when you address these subjects it's necessary to not render judgment upon the actions.  It's also important to line up power relations.  Would an Arabian Hanbal jurist have called the Hindus dhimmi people?  There is a good chance they wouldn't have.  So, that ruling was accepted and implemented in Mughal lands because of the interaction of political necessity with religious ruling.  Circumstances shape religion and we must take that into account.  gren グレン 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination is a fact 

message: I've noticed that EVERY artical with any critism of islam or islamic groups has a Totally Disputed tag at the top. This is Censorship through the contamination of perfectly factual information. Lots of articals are disputed on there talk pages but don't have this tag. I'm deleteing it, lets have a list of your supposed factual inaccuacies.Hypnosadist 11:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is nice to first delete the tag and then looking for a list. --- Faisal 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's right Hypnosadist.  Because many editors think reliance on the regular scholarly sources is itself not neutral.  We're being asked to compromise between NPOV/RS and IPOV/URS.Timothy Usher 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   That is because these pages are overly reliant on the work of pundits, not scholars.--Dr.Worm 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: "Thomas Arnold, an orientalist of the early 20th century" keeps being quoted (Point #5). This is intentionally wrong. Arnold lived from 1795-1842 and focused on Roman history and the education policy of his era. What little he knew on Islam's history has been superseded long ago. I don't assume good faith as this has been pointed out repeatedly; it's indicative of the approach of endless, unabashed filibustering.
:Pecher:"Ptolemy believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but contemporary scholars believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun."
:Aminz: "Well, first of all, both Ptolemy and those contemporary scholars you quoted are wrong."
For the record: the contemporary scholars are correct. For the argument's sake, Pecher just happened to refer to a popular, abrigded, and therefore imprecise version of their position. Again: unabashed filibustering, pars pro toto.
Aminz: "Jewish Encyclopedia is 100 years old but infact closer to the real incidents" ...inferring that the more recent the scholarly research, the more unreliable it gets. No comment on that. It's just one example of many showing Aminz unabashedly trying to impose his interpretation of historic reasearch, not caring about WP's standards on the issue.
Tony Sidaway: "We have entire articles based on the 1911 Britannica" Since when do articles relying on outdated information set standards?  "...so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant.": contemporary scholars are to decide on any EJ assumption's relevance, not wikipedians.  EJ's assesments contradicted by contemporary research are plainly not relevant. --tickle me 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment has been taken out of context to imply a blanket endorsement for the Jewish Encyclopedia which I did not intend.  I was simply addressing the suggestion, relayed to me by a third party, that an encyclopedia shouldn't be cited if it's "out of date".  We do have many articles, including several featured articles, which are based on articles lifted straight from the 1911 Britannica.  While the original text was used as a basis, the out-of-date portions were subsequently updated through the normal wiki process.  See absinthe for an example of such an article that has reached featured status from such a start.  A similar process is being used for introducing material from the Jewish Encyclopedia to Wikipedia.  --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur an didn't doubt it: there are proper wikipedic uses for the EJ indeed. However, Aminz' points 1,3 and 4 rely on it's improper use, as contemporary research contradicts Aminz' EJ based inferences. Thus pointing to what's obviously indisputable (cite and use EJ where relevant) diverts from the issue at hand: mounting a dispute on preposterous claims and citing EJ where it's not relevant but actually misleading. --tickle me 13:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I won't say anything about the current dispute, but it doesn't seem quite right to reject something out of hand just because you can find modern sources that say otherwise.  I suggest that you work together on writing about the apparent discrepancy, since the Jewish Encyclopedia presumably had scholars with access to first hand accounts of the Dhimmi. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz has requested that I comment here. The Jewish Encyclopedia is marginally acceptable if you can't find any other source, but it should not really be relied on if better sources are available.  Graetz was good in his time, but 100 years have passed, and historiography is much more accurate and sophisticated now.  When it comes to history, one should rely on more modern sources where possible, especially when the modern sources post-date the older ones by a century. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If all the arguments based on the Jewish Encyclopedia are gone, what contradiction is left to explain? Pecher Talk 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I was explaining your argument for Jayjg. I think the article still needs more work to become "undisputed". --Aminz 09:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As an outsider to this, I'm surprised that those disputing the article aren't addressing what appears to be the real issue: the extremely loaded language of the article.  In its present form, the article seems to be a hack job on Islamic governance.  For instance, "Disarmed and unable to defend themselves in courts, dhimmis were vulnerable to the whims of rulers and the violence of mobs."  This seems somewhat anhistorical because it introduces modern concepts of jurisprudence, to whit the right of all subjects of a country to equal protection at law, into an ostensibly historical account.   The unequal treatment at law has historically been applied by rulers to minorities, particularly for religious reasons.  Thus the statement in its present form appears to have more of a polemical effect (to highlight the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states) than to inform the reader.  Such undesired effects should probably be avoided, lest Wikipedia's article in Dhimmis come to closely resemble a political treatise against Islamic governance. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony you seem to misunderstand, Dhimmi is not a historical concept it is part of Sharia today. But i do not understand how an artical could be written about these laws which are dedigned to discriminate without it "highlight the unequal treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim states".Hypnosadist 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hypnosadist, but you said in tha above that modern scholars contradict traditional scholars! If Shariah is defined as what the Islamic scholars say, it will be more a historical concept. --Aminz 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  BTW, if Dhimmi is not a historical concept, then one can add the quote from Allameh Tabatabaei, a prominent contemporary Shia scholar, to the article. He states if "abrogation" is understood in its terminological sense, Muslims should deal with dhimmis stricly in a good and decent manner.  Tafsir al-Mizan on verses 2:83-88, Allameh Tabatabaei --Aminz 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that we have a section on dhimma on the modern world, you can probably re-introduce the Tabatabaei quote there as an example of what modern Islamic scholars think about dhimma laws. - Merzbow 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. That's a good idea. --Aminz 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I've supported the creation of the modern dhimmi section,which should have quotes from modern scholars as well as the information on jizya being collected off the Copts in egypt and Hizbut al tariha wanting to impose "old school" dhimmi laws. Also what do the saudi fundamentalists say.(Also the ban on non-muslims at mecca? is that dhimmi law?).Hypnosadist 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ban on polytheists at Mecca comes from a qur'anic verse. Hypnosadist, I think you have made a good collection of negative points. What about positive points? But in any case, you have done your job; someone else (whom I think we should wait for to come) should do the rest. --Aminz 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I'll unprotect for now but if the squabbles about whether the tag should remain continue I'll call to have it protected again. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious that the neutrality of this article is currently disputed, but is the factual accuracy also disputed?  Just asking.Timothy Usher 05:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I were to get involved in editing this article, I'd have some serious problems with the factual accuracy of the current version (as I indicated briefly above).  But I'll leave that to the involved editors to decide. I'll not protect the article again but I'll watch it and may call for reprotection if the squabbling breaks out again. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Timothy, sometimes neutrality and factual accuracy of an article are entangled together. For example, assume scholar X says "A is true"; scholar Y says "B is true". If one only writes scholar X says "A is true", the article becomes un-neutral. If one writes "A is true" the article will become both un-neutral and un-factual. --Aminz 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple solution. Rename the article to "Dhimmi, according to Bat Ye'or and Bernard Lewis". The article is overburdened with the views of a handful of orientalists. In addition to that, as Tony points out, the article is effectively a series of polemic statements deriding the historic practices that occured under the Dhimmi system. If this article isn't a commentary (and POV-driven indictment) on history, then there's the burden to prove that Shariah as practiced today also supports the kinds of restrictions on dhimma that the article claims it to. Sections discussing history should make it clear that their content is historical, and should not contrast events and policies practiced in the 8th or 10th century with standards we accept today. Sections dealing with contemporary usage of dhimma in countries that run under Shariah should make it clear what aspects of the dhimmi system are still being practiced. His Excellency... 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some evidences that the article is still disputed II

message: From my announcement on WP:ANI : 
: There seemed to be an unproductive edit war over whether the article was disputed. From the talk page there do seem to be disputes, which one party is denying are significant disputes. Accordingly I've protected the article until the parties at least can agree on terms of reference. 
Sorry for not placing this notice here earlier.
Note please that the version on which this article is protected does not reflect any authoritative content pronouncement.  On the face of it, however, there does seem to be some kind of dispute going on.  --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, Just wondering if there were no dispute, then why did I ask you to help resolving the dispute? --Aminz 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected_1 

message: Looking at a recent edit, I see that someone clarified the meaning of "free" in the opener as "(e.g. non-slave)".  Clearly he meant i.e. (id est) rather than e.g. (exampli gratia).  Any objections if I correct this common error on the protected page? --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, Tony, as you usually are.  No objection.Timothy Usher 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The minor correction "e.g." -> "i.e." has been made. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanwhile 

message: To avoid edit warring, let's work by consensus. I think it's agreed that statements need to be cited, and that it's not enough to cite, but to reflect the source accurately. Statements that are either uncited or incorrectly cited need to be corrected, or removed. 
Starting from the top, there's this sentence: "The status of dhimmi applied to millions of people living from the Atlantic Ocean to India from the 7th century until modern times [citation needed]. " Can we agree to substute 'until modern times' with something more appropriate? I suggest something like "from the 7th century, and is still practiced in countries such as...". Since only a handful of countries actually apply Shariah, and only few that practice it still hold the dhimma thing, this shouldnt be a problem. His Excellency... 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the quote for the modern implimentation its http://memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SP110306 and refers to jizya being collected off the egyptian copts. Above we were just reaching concensus on this quote as no challenge to its factual accuracy was forthcoming. Second there is the whole implicit dhimmi is still part of sharia/what is sharia law argument. His excellency please read all the talk page. Also this wording was a previously accepted compromise this is a big can of worms your opening again.Hypnosadist 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now i find out that you were editing here when the concensus was reached for that wording just under a different name. I think it is a bit off for you to now want to re-open the discussion under a different name.Hypnosadist 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The consensus was that this is the most we could say without reliable sources to inform the reader that dhimmi laws are no longer widely practiced. - Merzbow 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should anything be said without reliable sources? And if keeping the can of worms closed means having this article effectively read like an indictment of shariah from the view of a handful of orientalists, opening that can of worms might not be a bad idea. If implicit dhimmi is still part of Shariah, does that include prohibiting Jews from wearing sandals as the article claims? I can't help but feel the article is deliberately vague on the distinctions between historical practices and the core rules regarding nonMuslims according to Shariah. The article merely highlights the most oppressive of actions and presumes that all the Muslim World embraces those policies. His Excellency... 19:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because leaving a reader who just skims the first paragraph with the completely false impression that all Muslim countries today still enforce the laws of dhimma is a gross abdication of our responsibilities as encyclopedia contributors. - Merzbow 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree merzbow i only wanted to get rid of the word abolished as that was factual incorrect.Hypnosadist 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the edit to the intro is good and less all encompasing.Hypnosadist 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing Up To Standards 

message: "...the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave, and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "People of the Book" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.(Friedmann (2003), pp. 161–162)"
Who the hell is this Friedmann character who compares a Muslim marriage to slavery? Can someone verify if this is actually in the book? His Excellency... 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you live within 5 miles of a library. - Merzbow 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, we're just going in circles here. Can you propose a specific textual change? I already proposed that we add an 'although' clause to the Lewis sentence that makes it clear that he also says that dhimmis had rights theoretically granted to them by Islamic law. - Merzbow 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, the introduction & some other parts needs to be re-written. Just adding a phrase or even a sentence will not make the article unbiased. I'll propose a specific textual change in a few days after reading more. --Aminz 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, stop littering the talk page with pages of irrelevant quotes and comments. A reader who has been out of this talk for a day will find oneself completely lost due the heaps of meaningless comments that have piled up. You needn't reply to this, just stop doing what you're doing now. Pecher Talk 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pecher, stop. Your own comments are meaningness, not mine. I am replying back to someone else, you don't have to read. You have no right to call my comments meaningless. --Aminz 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage section (again) 

message: H.E., I think it is not appropriate to choose the heading of your paragraph POV(Abuse of Sources -> "Alleged" abuse of "a source") As I said, every alleged misrepresentation of the source at best can be construed as original research and only at worst can be construed as dishonesty. Moreover, we only want the article to be changed. There are more things to be changed, I've noticed, not just first paragraph. For example, the context of the following lewis quote gives us a different impression than it does when taken and read taken out of its context:
"It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam began to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesman for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity" 
I need to run now, and haven't read the previous talks here. I just noticed the heading you've chosen and thought it is not appropriate. Take care, --Aminz 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above regarding this incessant talk page littering. Pecher Talk 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I am doing talk page littering, you are also better stop defending yourself of the obvious misrepresention of the sources. --Aminz 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop defending myself from your misleading, dishonest, and baseless accusations? You ha ve failed to show a single instance where I have misrepresented a source. Pecher Talk 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pecher, I am not happy with our progress. We never had any significant progress anywhere really. Not so sure, but if the situation wants to remain the same, we may want to report each other to the ArbCom. I believe I already have enough evidences from here and there. You should have some as well. But that's not the good way to go unless we feel it is necessary. --Aminz 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. Pecher Talk 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably what you want, Aminz. They deal with article disputes but, it's not binding or anything. gren グレン 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No direct accusations 

message: I would like to use an article on this subject to supplement my reading about Christian-Muslim-Jewish relationships in the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately, this article is more or less hopeless as history. Although there are a great many references they are nearly all drawn from just three authors. Not that these authors shouldn't be cited, but since they are from a similar viewpoint they should be balanced with other reliable sources. The article consistently fails to distinguish between what sharia law said should be the status of non-Muslims and what restrictions were actually applied in different places at different times. 
Andrew Wheatcroft in Infidels: A History of the Conflict between Christendom and Islam, Viking Penguin 2003, says p76, talking about the breakdown of tolerance (convivencia) towards the end of the Reconquista:
"However, we should read the law codes and prohibitions less as a representation of what actually happened, and more as an effort to prevent the dangers of uncontrolled proximity. Islam never prohibited marriage between Muslim men and women of the other castes, while concubines or slaves were used sexually by men without regard to their faith. By law the children of Muslim men were supposed to follow the faith of their father. But the realities of human life, in the past as in the present, did not always correlate with the prescriptions of the law." Itsmejudith 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur w/ Judith. Absolutely! -- Szvest 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The article consistently fails to distinguish between what sharia law said should be the status of non-Muslims and what restrictions were actually applied in different places at different times." Lewis also agrees with this. If I remember correctly, he somewhere states that what was practiced was worst than what sharia law itself said. --Aminz 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis agrees with the comments about this article? I'm afraid he would need a time machine back in 1984 to do so. Actually, the article consistently distinguishes between the legal requirements and their practical implementations. All you need to find this out is actually read the article rather than skim the headings. Pecher Talk 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, If I remember correctly, Lewis agrees that "what was practiced was worst than what sharia law itself said"; I meant Lewis agrees with the the difference between "what sharia law says" and "what was practiced at different times". --Aminz 08:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page number? Pecher Talk 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure where I saw this (or I may have mistaken) but here is something similar. Lewis wants to argue that if we want to evaluate tolerance according to the practice of Muslims or their doctorines, we get different results. (at the Page 6). That is the practice is not identical to the doctorines, even to the extent that our answer to the question "How tolerant Islam" may change as to how we define Islam (based on practices or doctorines). --Aminz 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about whether Islam was tolerant or intolerant. The question of tolerance is inherently subjective, and it's not up to an encyclopedia article to answer it. This article is about the Islamic concept of dhimmi/dhimma and it's practical implementation. It's high time you relented and stopped bringing up the issue of tolerance and quoting all these general statements that you love to throw on the talk page. Start talking about specific provisions of sharia and their practical implementations. Pecher Talk 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is one aspect that this article should cover, but can you find the word "tolerance in how did those who, in different times and places, saw themselves as the upholders of Muslim authority and law, treat their non-Muslim subjects? The answer to this question is what I call "practice" of the application of the Islamic law, the other side being the theory, i.e. sharia itself. None of this has anything to do with "tolerance". Pecher Talk 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to people for quick responses to my comments yesterday. OK, I’ll take an example of what I mean. Say I want to compare the possibility of Jews constructing and using synagogues in mediaeval Muslim Spain with mediaeval Christian Spain. Fair enough question to use the article for? It is one of the things that I am interested in. By a long chain of connection it relates to research I am trying to do on south east England. I go to the section Places of Worship.
First I find six sentences presented in a very factual way, with wikilinks to historical figures. All this is drawn from Bat Ye’or (ref. 41). The first sentence states very firmly what Islamic law says. It seems plausible, but what are Bat Ye’or’s sources? Here the article is dealing with the law and not how it was interpreted. Then BY moves on to a particular jurist. Someone has kindly put in a wiki link to him, but the article is little more than a stub from 1911 Britannica. The article on the jurist has a long bibliography, but the dhimmi article, following BY, does not give the reference to which of the books might be relevant. There is nothing to be learnt about the circumstances in which this jurist was writing. Was this a central part of his legal approach or just an aside? Was it stricter or less strict than what other jurists argued? 
Then, still with the same reference to 2/3 pages in BY the article slides from what the law said to how it was enforced. Two sentences take us through three Abbasid caliphs and a Fatimid caliph, from 821 to 1021. All four have their own articles but there doesn’t seem to have been any attempt to cross-check between these. In the article on the first Abbasid there is mention of his intolerance of Jews and Christians – he also destroyed Shia shrines, apparently, which might be relevant. The second Abbasid’s article says nothing about attitudes to Christians and Jews. The third Abbasid is Harun Al-Rashid himself, and his article is detailed but has nothing on Jews and Christians. The Fatimid’s article sees his intolerance of other faiths as being “strange behaviour” linked to some kind of mental breakdown. 
Having gone through this 200-year sweep the paragraph ends with a general statement about dhimmis managing to build churches and mosques anyhow. This final statement makes it seem that more is known than actually is and gives the distinct impression that the position was the same throughout the Muslim world and across centuries. Also, the paragraph shifts between the question of whether non-Muslims were allowed to build places of worship and instances of when synagogues and churches were destroyed. 
The second paragraph deals with whether churches and synagogues could be rebuilt. Here the main reference is the Pact of Umar. Yet this very article refers to a consensus view of academic historians about the dubious provenance of that document. The statement that bribery was used is repeated with no source.  
What can I deduce from this section about the situation in Spain? I’d say nothing. It seems probable that an Abbasid destroyed synagogues and churches in the Middle East, and that a Fatimid did the same 200 years later in Egypt. I’ve found no information to extend statements elsewhere in wikipedia about the Almoravids and Almohads being less tolerant than the previous rulers of Al-Andalus. That’s OK for me. I’m a professional researcher - way, way out of my field, but with a general skill in using sources critically. There is no way that we can assume that all wikipedia users have those skills. It took me over an hour to pick this section apart. Very few users can afford that time. So it’s no good to say “read the article”. It’s meant to be an encyclopaedia article. It’s meant to give the reader a quick overview that should, nevertheless, be accurate as far as possible. This article does not meet criteria for use of sources in historical articles and should be completely rewritten. I appreciate that a lot of work is already going into this, but there is still a considerable way to go. 
And sorry for the length of this statement, but I needed this number of words to spell the point out. Itsmejudith 10:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With the greatest respect, Pecher, you don't know at all how serious I am about my research. Please don't tell me that I need to read the article more thoroughly or that I need to go through archives. I have a right, as do all readers, to use Wikipedia in weird, wonderful, and creative ways. I don't have a right to expect that it will give me sufficient details to answer all my questions. I do have a right to expect that what I find in the encyclopedia is factual and unbiased. My example was meant to show you that what I find in this article is selective and poorly structured. That is still my view. I couldn't convince you in this post but I will carry on trying to help towards consensus. BTW it was the al-Andalus page that directed me to this one, so yes, I did read it. Itsmejudith 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your speedy response, Pecher. However, if you read again what I said, the only thing I am demanding is a an encyclopedia article. I must leave it there rather than take the argument round in circles. There are substantive points of disagreement that I shall post on under the appropriate headings. You are a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, but please forgive me if I remind you to indent your contributions so that others can follow the discussion (or not, as they choose). Itsmejudith 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.Itsmejudith 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor structure and unbalanced 

message: H.E., where do these two rulings come from? The only reference you give is to something called "al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya". Can we have a publisher, date, and ISBN number of the English translation you used for this? And what is the "Sahih Abu Dawud"? There is a hadith collection "Sunan Abi Da'ud", but I searched the MSA collection for that saying and it's not there. Anyways, we can't quote hadith without commentary because it's not a reliable source, so please cite commentary for it or it will be removed. - Merzbow 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be a false citation from the Sunan Abu Dawud (the proper name: "Sahih" Abu Dawud is a mistake). Eagleswings 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JE finds "Whoever does violence to a dhimmi who has paid his jizyah and evidenced his submission—his enemy I am" in "Usd al-Ghaba," iii. 133 --Aminz 04:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not from one of the six canonical hadith collections.  Is this meant to be a hadith?  Where does it come from?Eagleswings 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know (I am shia) but according to Jewish Encyclopedia it is considered authentic by Muslims (see the below excerpt) --Aminz 04:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the third reminder to the same editor not to clutter the talk page. Pecher Talk 08:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be more specific. --Aminz 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you didn't understand: this lengthy quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia has nothing to do on the talk page. If you want to inform H.E. about some material that you find useful, post it on his talk page. Pecher Talk 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher, there's no policy that says so. The quote isn't long enough to create such a havoc. It is indeed encyclopaedic enough to merit a few lines here instead of Aminz spamming users' talk pages. -- Szvest 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "spamming" means posting the same message across multiple user talk pages; posting one message on one user talk page cannot possibly be spamming. Pecher Talk 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Mausu’ah al-Fiqhiya 

message: I won't bother asking people to read WP:RS, I'll quote the damned thing here so it can't be avoided:
* A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)
Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we can feel free to assert them.
* An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
Now, given the criticisms that Aminz has produced (and I can produce more), the statements derived from Bat Ye'or cannot be regarded as fact, but opinion. As such, "According to Bat Ye'or" or "Bat Ye'or" says" followed by whatever information that uses her books as citations is acceptable. To simply state something as a fact in the article and then finish it with the citation isn't acceptable, given her credibility as a scholar is questionable at best.They must be represented as such. Aminz, by the same token any statement by Karen Armstrong can also be included. You were mistaken in taking Pecher's words at face value. Please don't be naive. There are editors here who want to saturate articles with anti-Islamic views and exclude all views that could remotely be seen as sympathetic to the image of Muslims. I'm going to edit the article to make it clear that opinions are framed as opinions and not fact. Though I generally respect Bernard Lewis' work, the criticism he's recieved as being an 'orientalist' makes the same approach appropriate for him. His Excellency... 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOPE. We need to be convinced that Bat Ye'or is a reliable source. She doesn't seem to have rigid academic studies and Lewis doesn't seem to approve her scholarship. Why should Wikipedia accept it given that Karen Armstrong is already rejected as a reliable source? No, Either Bat Ye'or can be quoted or not. If yes, THEN her quotes maybe her opinions. I am now thinking of removing her quotes unless one can prove me otherwise. --Aminz 06:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds reasonable. I'd compromise and limit quotes derived from her books to a criticism section. I'd warn you about taking anything Pecher says at face value. I'm not sure there's a requirement that content here be based on sources that are impressive academically- only that they be published. His Excellency... 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let's wait for Pecher. He may prove to us that Bat Ye'or is a reliable source, who knows. --Aminz 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys are not seeing the big picture. WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy precisely because where the line should be drawn is relative to a particular article. Should we only quote published professors on an article about a Pokeman character? Nope, or else there wouldn't be an article. Given that an article should exist in the first place, the goal is to restrict ourselves as far as possible to allow an encyclopedic presentation of the subject, but not so far that we have no material to work with. If we exclude Ye'or, Bostom, etc., we essentially have no article, because there are basically no professors publishing in this arena. This isn't going to be allowed to happen, folks. So it looks like the rule of thumb here is that somebody can be quoted if they have published a number of books on Islamic history, and have been recognized by multiple independent sources, but it's not necessary for them to have a relevant degree or job in the field. - Merzbow 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "So it looks like the rule of thumb.."?! You can't stand by WP:RS, so you're inventing rules for the rest of us to follow? At the very LEAST, the criticisms of Bat Ye'or invalidate the contents of her book from being considered fact. There is no Muslim scholar who would agree with her. At talks in universities, students have walked out on her polemic diatribes. Even pro-Israel Jewish groups have condemned her rhetoric.  Her views can only be considered opinion (polemic ones at that) and rendered as such.That she has been criticized and that her credibility as a reliable source should also be documented somewhere in the text, given so much of the article is founded on her polemics. His Excellency... 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Merzbow, We have bernard lewis and a few others. Why aren't they enough? unfortunately, i haven't got to read much of lewis's works, but they seem very rich. I don't agree with you that "If we exclude Ye'or, Bostom, etc., we essentially have no article, because there are basically no professors publishing in this arena." --Aminz 07:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  For example, what you just removed Merzbow can be easily supported by lewis's work. --Aminz 07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis is an exception, but who else? We can't write the entire article based on Lewis. Merzbow 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Norman Stillman is another example. It would be also good to find a book written by an early renowned Muslim on Dhimmi. We don't have to only use the orientalist views. --Aminz 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Early renowned Muslim" would only qualify as a primary source, not as a secondary source acceptable per WP:RS. Pecher Talk 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  And for the record H.E., some random article by some unknown guy on a website called 'opendemocracy.net' falls way outside of any possible definition of a 'reliable source' for the dhimmi article by anyone's standards. You didn't actually think you were going to sneak that through, did you? :) - Merzbow 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merzbow, that's remarkable hypocricy considering what you've said two posts before this one. Look through the Islam-related articles here and see how often websites like Faithfreedom.org and Dhimmiwatch.com are used. All of a sudden a website isn't up to RS snuff? All of a sudden W:RS, which you dismissed as 'guideline, not policy' before is now written in stone? And where's the rule that says a publication must be in paper form? Do you have an ad hoc rulebook regarding sources that you're applying now? Or is POV-bias determining the criteria by which you hold sources to higher standards or lower ones? If Bat Ye'or polemics can be taken as fact, this is perfectly acceptable as well.  His Excellency... 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's still a web article on a random website, not even a published newspaper, and certainly not from a book. - Merzbow 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's random because you don't know of it? There is no WP rule that forbids content that isn't from a published-on-paper source. His Excellency... 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record: contrary to H.E.'s misleading claims above the article never quotes from Andrew Bostom or Daniel Pipes. Pecher Talk 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Contrary to your misleading claims, I've never said "Andrew Bostom" in my life. I don't even know who he is. His Excellency... 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the title of the preceding section never mentions his name. Pecher Talk 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Georgetown University is financed with Saudi money, as its name indicates. Pecher Talk 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what was deleted was not her opinions but her quoting other people often from translations she had done. This was not an edit it was a hatchet job anthing that had Bat ye'or's name near it. Could we Talk about specific quotes please.Hypnosadist 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAT YE'OR and WP:RS 

message: It strikes me as a bit odd that this article has so few online references. This is an internet connected encyclopedia is it not? As well while there are numerous cites they primarily appear to be only from 3 authors, Bat Ye'or, Lewis and Stillman (all in the form of book citations). On a topic as controversial as this one this strikes me as a bit odd. Are there so few online references that this article is obliged to almost solely rely upon book cites? Netscott 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of online sources 

message: I have got Lewis(1984). It is now obvious to me that Pecher has misrepresented the sources in the following ways:
* He has selectively picked some sentences hiding other neighbor sentences that make the paragraph or section neutral or complete the meaning of that very sentence.
* His selective manner of picking quotes has sometimes changed the meaning of quotes in some cases, that is, if one reads that quote in its context will get a different impression than when they are read here. 
I have gathered several evidences. I am requesting for this article to be wholely revised by an honest person who reports everything. --Aminz 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the title of Lewis' book exactly? Netscott 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Jews of Islam" Bernard Lewis 1984. I can provide a couple of examples for you. --Aminz 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the place. Please if you do, try to make it a comparision showing the neutral view and the non-neutral view as it reads now in the article. Thanks. Netscott 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious misrepresentation of sources by Pecher 

message: So a speedy keep is about as strong as it gets, anyone want to say anything on that. Hypnosadist 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So i'll be the first to talk about the AFD 

message: H.E. Some good books written on Dhimmi are the following. If you quote anything from any of these, that would be nice. 
Two excellent books (according to lewis):
1. Norman Stillman, The jews of Arab lands: A history and source book (Philadelphia 1979)
2. Mark R. Cohen, "The Jews under Islam: from the Rise of Islam to Sabbatai Zavi", 1976 pp. 169-229
On Islamic tolerance:
If available English translation of: "Toleranz und Intoleranz im Islam" 1970 by Rudi Paret 
Regards, --Aminz 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important point. Pecher said they are primary sources. I don't agree. We don't need the orientalists to teach us our own culture!! Good point! --Aminz 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not my work either. It is not my major. I suggested that these are the works one can use and nobody will dispute them. But if you are not interested, there is no obligation of course. --Aminz 05:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Stillman book is available for search at Amazon. I can't find the Cohen book, though. Would be nice if somebody could dig that up. - Merzbow 05:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup! I'll look for it. --Aminz 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good books 

message: Why is this a reliable source? I couldn't find anything about it online:
Bravmann, Meïr M. (1966). "The ancient background of the Qur’ānic Concept Al-Ğizyatu ‘an Yadin". Arabica 13. 
--Aminz 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be kidding: this is a work by Meir Moshe Bravmann, a famous orientalist, published in a peer-reviewed journal Arabica. This is not just a reliable source; it's cream of the crop. Pecher Talk 09:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google "Meir Moshe Bravmann", there is nothing much! I googled his book, the only link I found was Dhimmi article of wikipeida. It was nice if we had an article on Meir Moshe Bravmann or Arabica (this one is directed to caffee arabica! ). But I was just asking. --Aminz 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  . Doesn't appear to be online, although you can order individual copies through this link. I suppose large university libraries might have it also. - Merzbow 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And why Bravmann's quote is related to Dhimmi. Who makes this important connection? It is OR so far. --Aminz 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Pecher, how does he tie this to dhimma? - Merzbow 00:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eagleswings, who inserted the quote, may be better equipped to comment on that. Pecher Talk 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arabica is a highly prestigious peer-reviewed journal which has been publishing leading research on Arabic and Islamic matters for more than 50 years.  It can be found in any library with a serious collection of Arabic language and culture materials.  Bravmann can be found by googling "MM Bravmann" - there are more than 500 entries.  He was a leading expert in semitic studies, and specifically in the pre-Islamic roots of Islam in Arabic culture.  (See e.g. his The Spiritual Background of Early Islam. Brill. Leiden 1972 (Studies in Ancient Arab Concepts).  This is a relevant quotation because it makes the point that the concept of paying a reward to one's conqueror had roots in pre-Islamic Arabic culture.  This quotation belongs in the etymology section - where it was originally placed not in the origins section.  I don't know when this was moved, and by whom, but I propose to put it back in the etymology section.  Eagleswings 12:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but could you please explian what does it have to do with "etymology". It seems related to "sources of jizya". Could you please also leave a comment on my following comment. Thanks --Aminz 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No this is not specifically about jizya, but about the meaning of 'dhimma' as a 'liability arising from a fault, blame or debt'. The 'etymology' of a word explains the origins of the meaning of a word and how it developed later meanings.  Thus the etymology section explains how the root dh-m-m meaning 'to blame' or 'liability arising from blame or a debt' came to be used to refer to a treaty of surrender. Bravmann's quote provides the crucial explanation for this change in meaning.  This is a linguistic issue, concerning the semantic origins of the dh-m-m root in pre-Islamic Arabic culture.  In contrast the immediately following sections of the article now titlted 'origins of the dhimma concept' refer to legal and historial developments under Muslims rule, relating to Islamic sources and history.  This is different from etymology.  Eagleswings 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All this is saying is that Wellhausen, Becker and Caetani had argued that the jizya arose out of general tribute imposed upon the conquered, not originally specifically for non-Muslims or specificaly a head tax.  However, as the passage notes, this view is contradicted by all classical jurists (and they ought to know Islamic law) and more recent scholars have pointed out other numerous problems with this theory of orientalists. I don't see this as all that helpful and relevant for the dhimmi article.  It is really a footnote.Eagleswings 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bravmann 

message: I revised the section using Lewis's work. I wasn't able to revise the following two sentences since they were quoted from Bat Ye'or and Littman (to which I didn't have access):
"In Persia, where Shi'ism is dominant, these beliefs brought about restrictions that aimed at limiting physical contact between Muslims and dhimmis. Persian Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city, banning them from public baths."
--Aminz 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can take a look at the sources tomorrow... all three of the books (Ye'or, Littman, Lewis) sourced are actually on books.google.com and Amazon so they can be searched online. - Merzbow 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, Littman isn't available online, I mistook him for Friedmann. Anyways, thanks for doing the detective work here. It's probably worth it to double-check all the controversial portions of this article. BTW Pecher's talk page says he's on Wikibreak until July 9. - Merzbow 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wheatcroft's quote is about social isolation of different religious groups. That's an interesting and important subject, but it has nothing to do with ritual purity. Pecher Talk 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia ritual purity 

message: This reference needs to be improved - book, publisher, date, page number, web link...? - Merzbow 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani, Taudhihul Masae'l 

message: H.E.! welcome back! 
The source says that those " And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such. " are kafir and thus are najis. If one doesn't deny it but just doesn't practice it (as is the case for many in iran), he/she will not be najis.
Also, in the last sentence of the section we have: "Opinions of modern Shi'a scholars range from Ruhollah Khomeini's view that all non-Muslims are unclean[121] to the position held by Fazel Lankarani that Jews and Christians are clean" 
Sistani falls somewhere in this range. Do you think it is still necessary to mention him? --Aminz 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia ritual 

message: Hello all. Could we next turn our attention to the paragraph in the "humiliation" section mentioning "apes and pigs"? There are extremely strong claims being made here and the referencing as it currently stands is not good enough to support them. I haven't got the Stillman book or Bat Ye'or, which seem to be the major sources. Aminz, have you? Each sentence here should be referenced to its secondary source, probably with a "Stillman says" or whatever, rather than putting three sources at the end of the paragraph with no way of knowing what comes from where. If it's not possible to do this, to tie each sentence down to an author so a reader can judge how reliable the evidence is, then I propose simply deleting the paragraph. Itsmejudith 11:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hi judith, the first word is Raya which means herd or flock according to my Arabic dictonary, it has come to mean serf by Ottaman Empire usage to refer to there non-muslim subjects(how nice!).Hypnosadist 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. Does anyone know whether the connection between "raya" as herd or flock and "raya" as "serf" and/or "dhimmi" is drawn by Stillman at the reference cited? If it is, I suggest we add "Stillman argues that a word used to refer to non-Muslims originally meant ... ". Or is this idea only traceable back to a dictionary entry? This is even more problematic, since words change their meanings over time. I believe that Japanese men refer to their spouses with the formula "my stupid wife", which is considered polite(!), but that doesn't mean that all Japanese men think their wives are stupid.Itsmejudith 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following this post I wanted to trace the Encyclopedia of Islam link. I can't consult either the online (subscription only) or paper versions immediately, maybe someone can paste the whole entry. But while looking I found the Encarta entry for Ottoman Empire. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553949/Ottoman_Empire.html This uses "raya" to mean the non-military ordinary (Muslim) citizens of the empire, quite separate from "dhimmi". It is worth looking at how this article discusses "dhimmi", too.Itsmejudith 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The change in meaning is what i was trying explain. The Original meaning is Herd or flock, and is still used as this and is a root of a lot of words concerning animal husbandry. At the time the ottomen empire starts to expand it calls the non-muslim that it has control over Raya (their herd). Its then used for several hundred years to refer to these people so that many modern translators just translate it as serf or subject but its pergoritive use is important. By the last years of the empire the word has moved to cover all poor/landless people including muslims(still derogatory). I read the encarta article searching for raya and it has some common inaccuracies, see the etimology of raya.Hypnosadist 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what you're saying now. First the word is used to refer to animal herds or flocks. Then the Ottomans (who were Turkish, not Arabic, speakers - this could be important) use it for non-Muslims. Then it comes to mean all poor people. But how can we be sure of how derogatory it was at any one time? In English it is derogatory to refer to people as a "herd", but we still do it - "herd instinct", "stand out from the herd". But some languages may have a word that refers to collections of people or animals without being derogatory. See the introduction to the Wikipedia community article (a dreadful article, where do you begin to improve it?). We can't include this point as relevant unless there is one, preferably more than one, good secondary source that sees it as relevant. Itsmejudith 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: heres another from pakistan today weekly newspaper http://www.paktoday.com/wall2.htm Hypnosadist 10:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apes and pigs? 

message: I'm not a proffessor but shouln't the current use of the word be mentioned in an encyclopedia? And why is the text full of arabic words I can't understand, it is an English encyclopedia.
Thank you very much if somebody could do something about these two ommissions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006
*I reverted your edit. Dhimmitude is covered in that article. --Ezeu 04:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current use 

message: Please cite a source indicating that Sikhs were included in the category of "Peoples of the Book". Bat Ye'or, the source used for the citation, does not, as far as I know, include them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this source needs to checked as i can't find refernce to sikhs as people of the book hence deserve dhimmi status.Hypnosadist 12:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone who has access to the Bat Ye'or book check what she says and what her reference is in turn for the inclusion of Hindus. There is an extensive academic literature on the Moguls and I'm sure we can find a range of sources that discuss the position of both Hindus and Sikhs. I can't imagine that these two faiths were treated very differently given their common heritage. Itsmejudith 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bat Ye'or says that Hindus were given the dhimmi status "out of necessity". She doesn't cover the issue of Sikhs, so including them into that sourced sentence was original research. Pecher Talk 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we getting a bit paranoid about OR? It's an important policy, but on exactly the same level as NPOV. "Sikhs" could be left in with a  tag and then anyone who comes across the page might be able to find a reference. I can't see what Bat Ye'or would mean by "out of necessity". The areas conquered by the Mughals included both Hindus and Sikhs - perhaps she simply left out the Sikhs because she thought it would be understood that they were treated the same. What are her references for the Mughal period?Itsmejudith 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR is just as non-negotiable as WP:NPOV. Pecher Talk 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I said. Itsmejudith 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sikhs have NEVER EVER been concidered people of the book FULL STOP. Mughal rulers were evntually forced through constant revolts to give more rights to Hindu's, they justified the policy u-turn by saying we are going to give Hindu's the same rights as thier other subjects under dhimmi laws. The Sikh refence must go as it is just WRONG.Hypnosadist 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. Where did you get this information from?Itsmejudith 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The editorial i gave above is mine about a vast area of human history (due to time and number of people) to explain what Bat Ye'or would mean by "out of necessity". My point this is a purely political change brought on by violence with justification for the u-turn provided by pet theologians. Hindus are given dhimmi like status not dhimmi status, the first is practical politics the second is a deffinition based on if you follow a prophet of the Abrahamic tradition (any not just abraham and jesus). Sikhs had not killed enough people to get more rights for themselves by the time of the arrival of the British Empire, who treated everyone equally as badly(this was step up for the sikhs who were the bottom of the pile before). I'll try to think of a good book for you judith.Hypnosadist 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhs 

message: We have sourced material relating to Sunni and Shi'a Islam simultaneously, and some relating just to Shi'a. They don't reveal major differences so can be treated in the same section. The article doesn't otherwise distinguish the two and to deal with just Shi'a on this issue would be unbalanced. Itsmejudith 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, I don't see any sourced material dealing with both Sunnis and Shi'as on matters of ritual purity. If Wheatcroft's quote is what you mean, Judith, then read it carefully, please; there is nothing in the quote about ritual purity. Pecher Talk 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That Wheatcroft's stance applies to the Shia (or any) concept of ritual purity is OR so far, please show where he draws that conclusion. Without Wheatcroft's general assertions the section deals with Shia exclusively, which the section's title should reflect appropriately. Please add germane information if you feel that Sunni concepts should be dealt with too, which is reasonable - I concur with Hypnosadist. --tickle me 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy if the whole section was out for the time being, because to tell the truth, none of us knows the least thing about the topic. The distinction H.E. makes seems to me to be crucial and we should track down good secondary sources for it and include it. Wheatcroft is trying to explain why Muslims held Christians at arm's length and vice versa (in an Al-Andalus context, therefore Sunnis). Putting things in context and trying to explain is encyclopedic, I think, but it has to be reconciled with the "facts, facts, facts" approach. We may need to get other opinions on how to deal with this dichotomy. Wheatcroft  draws on Mary Douglas 'Purity and Danger', a key text in social anthropology, which we could go back to if necessary.Itsmejudith 08:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "None of us knows the least thing about the topic". Really? Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter because thankfully, we have sources that discuss this issue. So far , you have failed to produce of quote from Wheatcroft demonstrating that in Sunni Islam non-Muslims are ritually unclean, najis. Avoiding contact is one thing, ritual purity is something different. Pecher Talk 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Wheatcroft doesn't say that in Sunni Islam non-Muslims are najis and that he is talking in more general terms about avoiding contact. I haven't made any claims otherwise and haven't "failed to produce" anything. Sorry to disappoint you. Itsmejudith 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you insert Wheatcroft's quote into the section on Shi'a ritual purity and why did you remove the word Shi'a from the section title? Pecher Talk 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent edit!Hypnosadist 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Hypnosadist. --Aminz 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual purity 

message: I mentioned before that I have been searching for further rock-solid sources for this article. I have done a search on the ISI Web of Knowledge database, which is one of the best-known databases of academic papers. I searched for dhimm*, i.e. any word beginning "dhimm". This yielded 30 items. However, most of these are reviews of Bat Ye'or's books. Of interest in the discussion of whether she is a valid source or not, but not prime sources for this article. Five items were articles in peer reviewed journals. To remind people: journal articles are the first choice of source, books come after, and primary sources only after that. None of the articles had an abstract attached. 
Suggested next tasks: 
*Track down these articles
*Search for other relevant articles by these authors
*Search for other relevant articles in these journals
*Expand the search by using different search words, e.g "Muslim AND Non-Muslim", but this yields an unwieldy number of results. 
Any comments on this approach are very welcome. 
Amichou, L., 2000, ‘What is a dhimmi? (Non-Muslim persons of a Muslim country who do not serve in the military, but pay taxes, jizya)’,
Histoire, No. 243, May, p44. 
ISSN: 01822411 
This article is in French. It is only one page long. 
Al-Qattan, N., 1999, ‘Dhimmis in the Muslim court: Legal autonomy and religious discrimination’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3. Aug., pp429-444. 
ISSN 00207438
ISSN 14716380
Weigert, G., 1998, ‘A note on the muhtasib and ahl-al-dhimma’,Islam-Zeitschrift fur Geschichte und Kultur des Islamischen Orients, Vol. 75, No. 2,  pp331-337.
In English. 
ISSN 00211818
Rose, R.B., 1982, ‘Islam and the Development of Personal Status Laws among Christian Dhimmis – Motives, Sources, Consequences’, Muslim World, Vol. 72, No. 3-4, pp159-179.
ISSN 00274909
Bosworth, C.E., 1972, ‘Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries in Mamluk Egypt and Syria - Qalaqshandis Information on their Hierarchy, Titulature, and Appointment (II) .3. Documents Given by Qalaqshandi on Appointment of Heads of Dhimmis’, International Journal of Middle East Studies. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp199-216. 
Itsmejudith 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for your work.Hypnosadist 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, Judith, on your hard work on this article. Just one remark: quite a long time ago, looking for references to this issue in the couple of books on early Islamic history I had to hand at the time, I found few if any references to 'dhimma' or 'dhimmi' as such; the books were both published a while before, and the term seems to enjoy much more popularity these days. By contrast, I found references to 'jizya' which pointed me to relevant information. Looking for works dealing with 'jizya', 'christians+Islam' or 'Jews+Islam' might throw up results that your search didn't uncover. Palmiro | Talk 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful, thanks. You're right, I am finding a lot of stuff on jizya. Courbage & Fargues have some very interesting passages that I will summarise when I have time and feed into the jizya article. When that article is better then some material should come out of this one. (Including the section on "humiliation" I sincerely hope.) "Christians+Islam", "Jews+Islam" I shall try but fear that each may yield thousands of results. "Non-Muslims" may be more manageable. And one good article includes references to others, so eventually we can get the compass of the literature.Itsmejudith 14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Crone has some information on it on about page 370 of God's Rule: Government and Islam (). Empire and Elites After the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia may have some good case specific information.  Page 33 footnote mentions a specific contract from the region.  But, I think Crone is a relevant source in all of this if she is treated well.  That is, read around the quotes or whatever is used... she is easy to take out of context. gren グレン 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-reviewed articles 

message: Fond this http://www.moia.gov.bh/alhedaya_files/309/alhedaya309en.pdf  a magazine put out by the Bahrain ministry of islamic affairs saving it for modern dhimmi section.Hypnosadist 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source on modern dhimmi 

message: Hello Levito and welcome to this page. I'm afraid that people editing this article - myself included - are often too busy to remember to be nice to newcomers. I'm sorry that your first edit was reverted. I think this happened because there was a reference - possibly two - for the paragraph you deleted. I have googled for more information on the issue and I have learnt that it is controversial and complicated, no more than that. What is needed is one or more statements from either a paper in a refereed journal, or failing that, a book by a historian, to explain what Maimonides' situation was. If historians disagree then we present both views. 
At the same time, a belated welcome to Islami, not sure if you are new. You also had edits reverted. Same principles about sources apply to your edits too.
Please feel free to raise any issue about the article whatsoever on this talk page - if you do so before editing your edits are perhaps a little less likely to be reverted.Itsmejudith 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's your original research. Lewis does not trace this material to Graetz. Pecher Talk 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule about original research applies to the content of the article, not to arguments on the talk page. Looking back at books and articles to trace back the connections and origins of statements is not OR. It is source research, which Wikipedia strongly approves of. Pecher, you've got Lewis's book, just have a look and tell us what his reference is for the Maimonides point. Or Aminz can do it. All I can find searching academic journals is that "little is known of his life". And it seems there is no very good biography (what a pity - there is a massive amount written about his philosophy though). Maimonides' case is only mentioned here as an example, so unless the facts are certain it should be left out. Also, let's all try and keep our language moderate. Using block capitals is SHOUTING. Levito, since you seem to be staying around, it would be good if you had a user page and signed your contributions. Ask if you need a hand to sort this. Itsmejudith 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was mistaken. There is a scholarly biography of Maimonides. Herbert A Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Life, Oxford University Press, 2004, . If this book does not confirm Lewis's contention, or if it sheds doubt, or regards the issue as more complex than previous historians have done, then the point can't stay. Because all agree that Lewis is a good scholar, but this book is a) from a scholarly press b) more recent c) specifically about Maimonides and d) thoroughly researched from original evidence. Personally, I think the point should stay out until this source has been checked out because it is not essential to the main line of argument. Itsmejudith 22:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, it might be a good idea for you to provide quotes from Davidson's book on the issue of Maimonides's conversion. Otherwise, your contention sounds too vague. Pecher Talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to new editor(s) 

message: Pecher, why do you think there's no connection between this concept and that of dhimmi? Both are historical terms referring to relationships between ethnic majorities/minorities. Itsmejudith 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you supply a reliable source making this connection? Pecher Talk 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not got one to hand. And not got one for the link between solar power and 1973 oil crisis but one page references the other. Are you really saying a reliable source is needed for "See also"?Itsmejudith 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if people disagree, it doesn't hurt to back up your arguments by something. You're supporting Irishpunktom's pretty weird claim that there is a certain relationship between these two concepts, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Pecher Talk 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is they are names for people of a different religion, what i believe Pecher is complaining about is that Gentile has no implication of domination and hence why he does not want it added.Hypnosadist 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a corollary of ideas going back to Theodor Nöldeke.  Islam's roots are in Judaism, Christianity, etc.  that's basically the academic argument... because... most academics don't believe it was revelation.  I don't know who mentions it explicitly... but ideas of religious inclusionism are pretty pervasive. gren グレン 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how we disagree. Both are terms that were used in the days before modern states and citizenship laws to refer to religious minorities who fell outside the scope of the religion-based law and so had to have their outsider status defined. At least that's what this whole article takes X number of words to say about the Dhimmi. Doesn't gentile have a similar sense? I think it does in the New Testament, which I was force-fed at school, anyway. Itsmejudith 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere near close in my view. Gentile refers to non-jews even in majority non-jewish countries, but dhimmi only refers to non-muslim subjects of a muslim government implimenting many interpritations of sharia law. Yes gentile is derogatory by separation of the world into jew and not, but the Legal and Religious nature of dhimmi is pretty unique. PS as the new testament you where given was probably 3 of 4 language translation starting at arimahic going through greek and or latin we would need a good source to say what the word writen in your bible as gentile was. It could be literally gentile or just non-jew or something very rude we would not know.Hypnosadist 22:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there's a hard comparison because the jurisprudence / theology behind these is greatly contextual... and there was not a great center of Jewish power in well documented times.  So, there is that difference which (and I'm not sure) probably means that gentile didn't have to have such specific formulations as dhimma law did.  Being in power has a great deal of influence on how law is formulated.  They are related ideas of the regulation of otherness but their contexts differ a bunch. It is comparable but it has different implementation because of those power issues. It's also not a right answer or a wrong answer.  It's issues of using the words towards whatever ends... and since dhimma is political there is a degree that it's trying to say "the Jews did what we did"...  as seen with this article.  That doesn't make it wrong though.  It just means that we'll never agree on it... gren グレン 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not that much of a problem with it being added to the see also, but i do feel it is there for the reason you gave gren.Hypnosadist 23:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gentile 

message: Why do we have Pagan and Kafir in the see also list? --Aminz 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have pagan, kafir and gentile than just gentile as links to other derogatory names for groups of OTHERS.Hypnosadist 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see! Yes, these are "links to other derogatory names for groups of OTHERS." Got it. --Aminz 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily derogatory. "Dhimmi" isn't derogatory in essense, though contemporary thinkers might consider the idea insulting. The concept of 'the other' in diffrent religions. Itsmejudith gave a pretty simple explanation for having this here. His Excellency... 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Agree kafir is relivent, gentile is not due to etimology.Hypnosadist 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Should we have a to-do list for this article? It might help people to prioritise and concentrate their efforts instead of getting bogged down on discussions that go round in circles. Anyone against?Itsmejudith 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! --Aminz 22:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Please do not enter dubious allussions to non relateed terms. Gentile has no association to Dhimmi.
Guy Montag 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally joined the discussion on Gentile since I didn't know exactly how it is. But I wonder why there is this much sensitivity to having this word in the "See also" section? There is a section above in which some editors have made some connections between Dhimmi and Gentile.--Aminz 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how placing gentile in the see also section counts as gaming the system or any other way of disrupting wikipedia. PS when did you last edit this page before the above post?Hypnosadist 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No moral equivalence is implyed, but a linkage in concepts is. Both the Salvation Army and the Spanish Inquisition should be linked, in whats known as a catagory, such as christian religious groups.Hypnosadist 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hypnosadist - Be advised: as a Jew, I take great personal offense at your linking these. I am not getting into a 3RR problem over this, but I will start reporting this as vandalism unless you either respond constructively to my concerns or desist from this. We have tried to explain why this is so offensive to us - any further insistence on including it can only be construed as deliberate bad behavior. --Leifern 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leifern, why do you think "this link - deliberately or not - implies that there is equivalence between the Moslem concept of "dhimmi"? ; we have links to "Kafir (Pagan)", "heathen", etc as well. Feel free to add more. It is in the "See Also" section after all. --Aminz 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it is provided without context, and the implication is that it is therefore equivalent. As I've said at least twice, an article that discusses different religions' view of "other" could have links to both, or all of these. It may well be that links to kafir, pagan, etc., also are offensive; I'll leave that to someone else to judge. I'm not going to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but I've illustrated a couple of examples of how one could go about that. --Leifern 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leifern, I was indifferent to having Gentile in the See Also section from the very beginning. Still I don't understand how it is offensive (?) to you; but as you let us know that it is so, I don't think anybody here wants to make you unhappy. --Aminz 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm advised Leifern, there still is no implyed equivalence as dhimmi is not equivalent to the website dhimmi watch, but they are linked. Leifern - Be advised i take great personal offence at people who have not editted a page before turning up and demanding things are done thier way against a forming concensus and toss around accusations of bad wikiquette.Hypnosadist 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hypnosadist and Aminz, please read my objections and respond to them. Hypnosadist, I don't know why you should take offense at someone arriving at an article and finding faults with it. That is the nature of Wikipedia, and it is how it improves. There may be other "see also" links that also need to go, and I didn't object when someone deleted the others - but I am focused on this one. There may be no equivalence in your minds - I should hope not - but the presence of the link clearly implies that there is. --Leifern 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Guy... stop.  There is no disruption there's a content dispute.  No one is 'right' and no truth is going to be found here.  One side will bully their way and we will end up with or without the link.  So, let's get on with that fun process and not pretend that either side is any more disruptive. gren グレン 11:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive responded to your objections, just because you don't understand the job of the see also links is not my problem, or see them as the see utterly morally identical links, again is not my problem. You are reinforcements to push a specific pov arguement thats what i object to, i also object to the name calling by saying editors on this page are violating wiki policy just because most of the editors here disagree with you and will not do what you Demand them to do.Hypnosadist 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with another editor with whom you are arguing, on another article? --Leifern 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've requested temporary full protection of the See Also section until this calms down. We should organise a straw poll, even though it won't be binding and won't satisfy either side ;-) I also have an idea for compromise. That is that we put subheadings in the See Also, with one for "minority religious groups". And Leifern, I'm not sure what you were saying on Aminz's talk page about the antisemitism comment not being by you, when you've admitted here it was you and you just forgot to sign it. I've wasted time on this and don't want to waste any more. If you can just say you didn't intend to accuse me of antisemitism I will accept that and we can both get back to the search for compromise. I'm glad that you have now expanded on your reasons for not liking the links. Itsmejudith 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Itsmejudith, please read my posts before you jump to conclusions as to what they mean. My point was this: if I simply pasted a link to "antisemite" on yours (or anyone else's) talk page, it would (rightly) be met with harsh criticism. But your reaction to this point illustrates mine rather well - much would be inferred from the association that isn't made explicit. --Leifern 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point is not logical, personal talk pages are very different, that she though you where insulting her was probably due to the tone used by you and other new editors pushing this POV over the see also list.Hypnosadist 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: PS Guy (or anyone else) has yet to say how i was gaming the system or disrupted other pages to prove a point on this one, show me or withdraw this accusation!Hypnosadist 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its all about the subtext! Really very enlightning how your POV total dominates the reason for these edits. In fact according to levito as dhimmis are second class subjects under muslim rule and gentiles arn't given any citizenship rights (however ill formed at this point in human history) under jewish rule it could be said it is insulting to muslims to compare dhimmi to gentile, but i won't do that. That was framed in the same ways as your insinuations of New Anti-Semitism and then saying Some people (present party excluded, I hope) to distance your self from the stench of the dirt you have thrown. Vigilent and wrong, you and your mates can take your aganda and insults to another page as it will not be tolerated by me. PS if you think i'm a New Anti-Semitism please have the guts to say it straight.Hypnosadist 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no ideas what motivates you, Hypnosadist. I'm trying to explain why this is a big deal, since you asked - I don't know where you get the idea that my POV dominates the reasons. --Leifern 15:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Leifern.--Mike18xx 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes no sense because everything in the "See also" section is not identical by definition. In addition, there is no practice on Wikipedia to add something other than links to the "See also" section. Pecher Talk 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop making false accusations please. I was inspired by Hypnosadist's suggestion and am just trying to get a compromise that we can all agree on. --Aminz 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]] 

message: I never meant to imply that Itsmejudith is antisemitic or harbors any prejudices against Jews or any other ethnic or religious group. --Leifern 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this clarification. I also note that you were trying to make a point about the power of juxtaposition. Itsmejudith 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to be clear 

message: Was accidental. I was only trying to restore the reference. Sorry everyone. Itsmejudith 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental wholesale revert 

message: I would like to add following paragraph under Views of Modern scholars about Dhimmi in Dhimmi article. If someone can add to it, I shall be grateful to him. --SaadSaleem 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks SaadSaleem. BTW, If one can also apply these changes to Dhimmi article, I would be thankful. . --Aminz 22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And do all islamic scholars agree with this interpretation? It sounds very POV to me. TeunSpaans 20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you're an idiot.
===Notes===
Thank you for this, Saadsaleem (you forgot to sign your contribution BTW). It looks like a very relevant and notable addition to that section. Unfortunately, no-one can edit the article at the moment because it is protected. That's something I asked for because there was a controversy going on about what to include in See Also. You can read the debate here and see the page history. When editors feel ready to resume editing by consensus then we can ask for the page to be unprotected and I/you/someone can add the above text relating to Mr Ghamidi. Itsmejudith 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition in ''Views of Modern scholars about Dhimmi'' 

message: Thank you for this, Saadsaleem (you forgot to sign your contribution BTW). It looks like a very relevant and notable addition to that section. Unfortunately, no-one can edit the article at the moment because it is protected. That's something I asked for because there was a controversy going on about what to include in See Also. You can read the debate here and see the page history. When editors feel ready to resume editing by consensus then we can ask for the page to be unprotected and I/you/someone can add the above text relating to Mr Ghamidi. Itsmejudith 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: How does one pronounce "dhimmi"? Can we have some sort of indication within the article? --Hyphen5 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Does anyone have information in regards to Pecher's whereabouts, or indeed why he has deleted his userspace. He has been so instrumental in the development of this article, I would consider it a great shame if he gives up on it.82.152.196.224 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the deletion log for his page and it said that the content was removed by the user then an admin deleted the page. Yes it looks like we have another casualty of the WIKI-WAR!Hypnosadist 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers, I ask that all contributers respect his comments from hereon, obviously alot of people disagree with some of his comments however, I think this article is in danger of becoming a little one sided unless we draw on the comments of such users before making changes.JHJPDJKDKHI! 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pecher 

message: CltFn, thanks for that addition. I am however concerned that you have exactly copy/pasted the text from Lewis's book: Ayatollah Khomeini in his book "On Islamic Government" indicates unequivocally that non-muslims should be required to pay the poll tax, in return for which they would profit from the protection and services of the state; they would, however, be excluded from all participation in the political process. [149] Bernard Lewis remarks about Khomeini that his main grievances against the shah was that his legislation allowed the theoretical possibility of non-Muslims exercising political or judicial authority over Muslims.  appears exactly there. For the sake of Copyvio, would you please either rephrase it or quote the whole thing to Lewis in double primes. Thanks --Aminz 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Modern view of Dhimmi 

message: The article reads:
"The pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. Although Muslim authorities sometimes raised the question whether dhimmis should be forced to accept Islam, the prevailing opinion was that dhimmis had to be allowed to preserve their religion largely because they were an economic boon to the Muslim state."
I found these on the referenced pages relevant to this passage but it doesn't seem to support it:
Lewis p.9:" Though there was general agreement on the need for slaves and women, there was at times some question about the need for unbelievers. The common view, however, was that they served a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic."
Bat Ye'or p.66 reads:
"The concept of "fay"-- collective booty reserved for the upkeep of the Islamic community-constituted the legal argument which preserved the religions of the conquered peoples. This economic burden, which devolved on the disarmed vanquished people to the benefit of a warlike community destined to conquer the world, is very clearly set out by Muslim jurist consults. However, the other specific aspects of the koranic revelation which teaches respect for the religions of the Book, and forbids religious constraints, also appears in the writings of these jurists, sometimes in the same discourse."
Thus, I suggest this change:
"From a Islamic legal perspective, the pledge of protection granted dhimmis the freedom to practice their religion and spared them forced conversions. Furthermore, the dhimmis were also serving a variety of useful purposes, mostly economic, which was another point of concern to jurists." 
Any feedback? And suggestion? --Aminz 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced Conversions 

message: First, this article is about Dhimmi and that section is about "Enslavement" of "Dhimmis". So, that is not the place for the quote. Secondly, I have access to page 372 (unfortunately not 371) of the book and it reads: 
"Once the war was over, people recieved dhimma in return for payment of jizya and generally were left in peace, again whether they were pagans or people of the book. One should not think of jihad as something conducted along the lines of Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons."
Should anybody has access to p.371, I would appreciate if you could let us know more information about the quote, its context, etc. Thanks --Aminz 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CltFn's edit