Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 1

message: Some of the information in this article appears to be incorrect but I can't get the references right now. I'll ask some body on net or at home to provide. Questions are
#Some of the conditions here are not related to dhimmi law, but to pact of ommar which should be excluded in this context.
#Some of these things are 'optional' in dhimmi law. Current text suggests that islam orders to put them but islamic goverment don't act on some of these.
I think these two need explanations.
Further I had personally heard a hadith a lot of time but was not able to find 'web reference' so I didn't go to put it. Now I have finally found the web references.
Who hurts a dhimi he hurts me, and who hurts me he hurts Allah
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (Whoever hurts a dhimi (a Jew or a Christian) he hurts me and who hurts me he hurts Allah)
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (Whoever kills an innocent dhimi (covenanted person) will not smell the scent of Paradise).
Problem is that a lot of islamic law is not online so I often know the book references but it is difficult to find equivalent web references.
Zain 22:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A dhimma is a treaty between Muslim conquerors and non-Muslim conquered.  The Pact of Umar was the most famous of these, and the model for all others. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 00:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well answer is no. look up net for details. 
Zain 21:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, your response doesn't make sense. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 23:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues to which I am not sure 

message: Before this article is submitted to peer review or better again, it would need at least a nod at the history of Muslim-Christian relations in Ethiopia. While there were some admirably harmonious times (e.g. the king of Axum who gave sanctuary to Muslims during the first persecutions in Mecca & Medina), there have also been some very rocky times, where neither side came out well. -- llywrch 23:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies 

message: What possible justification could there be for inserting the sentence "This rule applied to all people, not only dhimmis, but as Dhimmis did not worship in the Mosque in modern terms it can be seen as unfairly discriminatory." into a description of dhimmi restrictions?  As far as I can tell it is pure original research. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  " This rule applied to all people, not only dhimmis, but as Dhimmis did not worship in the Mosque in modern terms it can be seen as unfairly discriminatory." 

message: Yuber: Here's the source ; I don't know if it reads in English for you, let me know and I will provide an English language transcript.  Where do you want it posted?  Nobs 02:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something about Kharaj in there because I really don't want to read through 10 different sections of that site, especially since the headings of the sections are very POV and demeaning.Yuber(talk) 03:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the background section I'd like to insert (1) Historical instances: "Disobedient or rebellious dhimmis were reduced to slavery—that is, if their lives were spared—and prisoners captured in jihad were also enslaved if they could not be exchanged or ransomed. In 781 7000 Greek prisoners of war were enslaved after a battle at Ephesus. At the capture of Thessalonica in 903, 22,000 Christians were sold into Muslim slavery. The same happened in 1064 in Georgia and Armenia. In Africa Arab rulers regularly raided sub-Saharan black tribes and captured slaves, claiming their raids to be jihad; many Hindus were enslaved on the same pretext."  (2) Doctrinal basis: "The Koran recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave, and the rights of the former over the latter (Kuran, 16:71; 30:28). The Kuran assures the Muslim the right to own slaves (to "possess their necks") either by purchasing them or as bounty of war (58:3). Its author, Muhammad, had dozens of them, both male and female, and he regularly sold, purchased, hired, rented, and exchanged slaves once he became independently wealthy in Medina after the confiscation of Jewish property. The bounties are lawful to the Muslim, theologian ibn Timiyya wrote, and slavery is justified: "It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity" (Ibn Timiyya says,Vol. 32, p. 89). In line with the racist views of Muhammad about his own people, the Arabs, as "the nobles of all races," they were exempt from enslavement (Ibn Timiyya states,Vol. 31, p. 380)."
Professor Srdja Trifkovic has the requisite credetentials.   Nobs 03:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Professor (what's his degree in, by the way?) Srdja Trifkovic is a right-wing crank, as the fact that he writes for Chronicles might indicate. This is quite beside the point, though: this is not an article on the history of slavery under Islam, so all but the first two clauses of this addition are entirely off the topic. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: What made you assume that I am shi'a and therefore believe in taqiyya?  The shia users on this encyclopedia would be offended by that remark.Yuber(talk) 03:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certain the events of Ephesus 781 Anno Domini or CE or whatever the concensus is will stand up, as will Thessolnica 903 CE and Armenia 1064 CE; as will the Koranic citations without Prof. Trifkovic's help.  Point is only dhimmi's can be taken into slavery, non-Muslim's are exempt (i.e. the racial nature of the institution).  Nobs 03:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All dogs are mammals; Socrates is a mammal; therefore Socrates is a dog. You seem to be confusing "dhimmi" (non-Muslims living within an Islamic state) with "non-Muslims" (self-explanatory); all of the former are necessarily the latter, but not all of the latter are necessarily the former. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: duh, Muslims I guess I meant to say.  Sorry, my parents were cousins.  Nobs 03:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslims I guess I meant to say—I thought as much. This doesn't change the fact that the enslavements mentioned—Greeks in the 8th and 10th centuries, Armenians and Georgians in the 11th, and sub-Saharan Africans whenever—have nothing to do with the topic of the article. Unless those areas were at the time part of an Islamic state, which they weren't, their inhabitants could not be considered dhimmi. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Which sources did the come from, the ones I provided? Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery

message: Jayjg, all of the restrictions I repaired from Yuber's vandalism were sourced; why did you remove them? KaintheScion
:Which sources did the come from, the ones I provided? Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restrictions on Dhimmis

message: KainTheScion/ElKabong reverted my removal of these links, so here's a more detailed explanation than can fit in an edit summary:
*http://www.iis.ac.uk/glossary/glossary_hk.htm addresses kharaj, so I moved it there. 
*http://www.wm.edu/so/monitor/fall2000/paper7.htm is an undergraduate essay that cites a grand total of two sources, one of which is already referenced in this article, and in at least one instance (endnote 26) does so erroneously: Lewis doesn't mention the kharaj on any of the pages cited. Surely we can do better than this.
*http://www.churchisraelforum.com/the_dhimmi_jews_and_christians_under_islam.htm is an essay from the personal website of a random Baptist minister whose importance is not apparent, though his Christian Zionist agenda is. He cites a single source—Ye'or—which is, again, already mentioned in this article. Surely we can do better than this.
KainTheScion/ElKabong might wish to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before readding these links. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  links removed 

message: I'm afraid the logic of a recent revert by Jayjg escapes me.  Firstly, heads of state in non-Muslim countries do appear to be within the scope of this section.  Secondly it is hardly original research to say that the UK head of state has to be a Protestant, well established fact, see e.g. Act of Settlement 1701, similar provisions apply in several Commonwealth countries, Holland, and possibly Finland. PatGallacher 18:12, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
:This article is about Dhimmis, and actions by Muslim states in regard to that.  It is not about Christianity and non-Muslim states.  Furthermore, the claim made was dubious, since it referred to entirely symbolic Heads of State who have no real power.  Finally, it was original research, specifically "it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article".  One cannot NPOV an article by trying to refute statements in it with "oh yeah, well Christian countries do the same, so there"; rather, one NPOVs article by quoting opposing viewpoints on the topic (in this case, dhimmi). Jayjg (talk)
::The UK monarchy may be only a very important symbolic position, so perhaps we should admit that it's only a significantly symbolic form of discrimination. Really, though, in the year 2005 it's a bit rich and I think if I was a UK Catholic (with  long history of discrimination and, in the more distant past, persecution) I'd be annoyed by it.
::The Argentinian presidency is a real position of power, and one recent incumbent (Carlos Menem) actually converted from Islam.
::Anyway, this section of the article seems to deliberately set out to compare dhimma status with the behaviour of non-Islamic majorities, so a comparison of this sort does belong there. Thanks for reconsidering the revert. Palmiro 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat indifferent about it staying or going (I think a comparison of this sort is perhaps useful in giving perspective to the topic), but on what grounds do you classify it as original research? Palmiro 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, re-reading your post above I see your point. I'm not altogether convinced that this section constitutes "an original argument", personally, I've heard this sort of thing more often than I've had hot dinners. As I said, I think this is potentially useful in giving historic perspective: I agree that it can't be considered a question of NPOV. Palmiro 22:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: in any event, the whole heads of state issue seems irrelevant as it's specifically talking about modern states and doesn't apear to make any link with the question of 'dhimmi' status. I think it should be removed, whatever about the rest of the section. Palmiro 00:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads of State

message: Should it be mentioned that Visigothic laws also distinguished Arian Visigoths from Hispano-Roman Catholics?
--Error 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Visigothic law

message: The battle to strike wiki NPOV and the key aspect of dhimmitude has been chucked!  Dhimmitude is not a dhimmi but the attitude of a dhimmi.  Bat Yeo'r seminal work provides lots of evidence and sources for dhimmitude.  Dhimmitude is the dhimmi being psychologically co-erced into debasing his/her own culture in favor of Islam.  Nothing on this page covers that.  This page covers the tools used by Muslims to debase dhimmis.  Another page is needed on dhimmitude.  The muslim apologetics will throw a hissy fit.  So start a page on the psychology of dhimmis.  00:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychological Aspects of Dhimmitude

message: Does this article really need a comprehensive exposition of the position of one marginal political organisation on the issue? Palmiro | Talk 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberation Party 

message: Olivier Roy, in The Failure of Political Islam, footnote on page 215, states that the Iranian revolution did not apply dhimmi status. He points out that Christians serve in the miiltary and pay the same taxes as other citizens; in politics, they are not permitted to hold the leadership (not exactly clear what he means) but vote (in their own electoral colleges) and have reserved seats in parliament. 
On that basis, I'm removing the reference to Iran from the article.
The third sentence of the first paragraph reads 
:In both legal theory and practice, dhimmis have fewer legal rights and obligations than Muslims.
Since the practice doesn't seem to exist anywhere these days, the use of the present tense seems inappropriate. I think this should be rephrased. Is "dhimmis have had" better? Palmiro | Talk 22:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran; opening paragraph