Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 2

message: I've taken the liberty of shortening the summary and getting much more to the point. Details are better left to the body of the article. It's the length I'm after. Feel free to tweak the summary, but for heaven's sake, we don't need two full paragraphs. A couple shorties like this is more elegent. 
- Who: Muslims and "People of the Book", eventually Hindus and Sikhs
- What: Taxes, Rights, Limitations
- When: Since Islam
- Where: In Islamic States 
- Why: In dispute. I think a fair compromise is either state multiple sides of the argument, or leave this component to the body of the article.
(Anon, May 5)
:I revised the material in the summary to correct the lexicographical material on dhimmi and dhimma, and included a dictionary citation for the dh-m-m root.  The request for a citation for 'symbols' of inferiority has also been addressed.  This material was then moved to the Background section where it really belongs.  This makes the summary very short - just one sentence - which defines what a dhimmi is.  Eagleswings 11:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction / Summary / meaning of 'dhimma' 

message: There's a modern bias that rings throughout this page. This can't be helped to some degree. It's hard not to sound like a libertarian when we can exercise the moral judgements of today upon the policies of the past. However, saying that dhimmis in the middle ages experienced an advanced form of persecution would be like saying that Athenian Democracy was an advanced form of dictatorship. The idea of a dhimmi, like the idea of a Democracy, is a concept that's been open to dispute, revision, and significant swings in meaning. 
We need to stop looking at this as an evaluation of some universal notion of dhimmi from today's standards of religious freedom. There IS no universal standard -- aside from what the Prophet Muhammed is said to have done in the Quran. Thus, in order to really provide total and complete historical accuracy, we need to describe the multiple different policies towards dhimmis in various times and places:  Dhimmi back then, Dhimmi today, Dhimmi under this ruler, Dhimmi under that ruler, Dhimmi in that country, similar policies to Dhimmi elsewhere (e.g.: the Byzantine Empire), and so on. 
In telling history, you compare events to what came before them -- you seldom stop to analyze the events based on what we now know today except perhaps at the very end.
Yes, and those Negroes were really happy in the antebellum South.Incorrect 03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Bias 

message: The section should be deleted because now it is devoted to persecution of Jews in Visigothic Spain, a topic that has nothing to do with the subject of article. Furthermore, the heading of the section does not correspond to its content.--Pecher 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies 

message: I fully concur with the point made above Talk:Dhimmi#Liberation party that an extensive excursion into the draft Caliphate constitution proposed by Hizb ut-Tahrir is irrelevant for this article. I have removed the material.--Pecher 13:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  --Dr.Worm 09:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that that information should be on the entry for Hizb ut-Tahrir, and not in this article.  If Hizb ut-Tahrir wants dhimmi, it is an atribute of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and not importaint to understaning Dhimmi status.  Also, if the historical concept is importinat to the "the war on terror", then it should be debated on that page. --Dr.Worm 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hizb ut-Tahrir 

message: Now the section Modern vs. customary practice contains the following paragraph:
Some Muslim authors present the dhimmi as being equal to Muslims. For example:
:"Islam does not permit discrimination in the treatment of other human beings on the basis of religion or any other criteria... it emphasises neighborliness and respect for the ties of relationship with non-Muslims ...within this human family, Jews and Christians, who share many beliefs and values with Muslims, constitute what Islam terms Ahl al-Kitab, that is, People of the Scripture, and hence Muslim have a special relationship to them as fellow 'Scriptuaries'."
In my opinion, the paragraph does not contain any meaningful information, just general words. I propose that it be deleted.--Pecher 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I have to disagree with you. If a significant Muslim authority says that Islam does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion, that is highly germane. In fact, it could hardly be more relevant. That it is phrased in absolute terms does not reduce it to general words, it actually makes it more powerful. Palmiro | Talk 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is worded too generally. It must be more substantive so that we could know exactly what this person means under "discrimination" . And why do you think Suzanne Haneef is a "significant Muslim authority".--Pecher 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I was replying hurriedly and in a theoretical way on the basis of what was here on the talk page. You're quite right, I don't have any reason to believe that Suzanne Haneef is a significant Muslim authority, in fact it seems pretty clear that she's not and she's quite likely not really quotable on her own account. Though if lots of (Muslim or other) writers say this, then that's worth saying. If lots of writers (or apologeticists) say this but most religoius authorities say something else, that's also worth reporting. Palmiro | Talk 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I believe that members of a religion should be allowed to define what their religion allows or does not allow, I feel the paragraph should be deleted.  My reason is that it is not germane to the topic.  I can understand that a contemporary muslim can feel that his religion does not permit descrimination, so he would want to include that paragraph so that a reader would not confuse treatments of dhimmis with contemporary Islam.  However, we should only be concerned with historical facts in this article.--Dr.Worm 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differing views on the status of dhimmi 

message: The article now has a paragraph quoting Egyptian intellectual Sayyed Al-Qimni:
Sayyed Al-Qimni has criticized books used in the curriculum at Al-Azhar University in Cairo and other Islamic universities for teaching that dhimmis should be degraded.  For example: "If a dhimmi invites a Muslim to a wedding celebration, he must not go, 'because one must degrade dhimmis...'" 2
Sayyed Al-Qimni is not an Islamic authority; his position may be mentioned in a section like Criticism of dhimmi laws among Muslims if such a section is created, but hardly elsewhere. Furthermore, in July 2005 he retracted everything he had said or written before . At this point in the development of the article, references to his views are misleading and should be removed from the article, at least temporarily.--Pecher 12:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again, we disagree... First of all, if Memri can be believed, it would appear that he publicly recanted because of a death threat. That can't be held to retrospectively invalidate what he said at the time. Secondly, again according to the website quoted, he is/was a lecturer in the sociology of religion. That makes his views quite germane. And thirdly, I strongly object (as a general principle, not just in this case) to the idea that everything critical about a person/concept which is the subject of an article on Wikipedia should be shoved into a "criticism of" section. Although even worse is the development of contesting "arguments for" and arguments against" sections. In this particular case, I think this quote fits reasonably well into a discussion of how Muslim/Islamic writers actually portray the position of the dhimmi, giving an example of both bigotted views in official use, and reaction against that. I do have some concerns about using Memri as a source, but I imagine all this could be confirmed elsewhere. Palmiro | Talk 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sayyed Al-Qimni 

message: Good. It needed a fat overhaul. You'll want to link janissaries in the Dhimmi#Personal_freedom section already referencing such activities.--Mike18xx 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of.--Mike18xx 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which one?--Pecher 11:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind; it's working again (site crash, I imagine).--Mike18xx 11:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pecher's Major Edit 

message: "Furthermore, dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers."
I think that this sentence is ambiguous. Muslims themselves are taught to refrain from loud lamentations at funerals. It is forbidden to perform the funeral prayer for Muslims that did not adhere to the 5 daily prayers before passing away. Muslims do not perform this prayer for non-Muslims either. Is the author trying to say that dhimmis were held to the same funeral requirements that Muslims are held to? Perhaps the author means that dhimmis could not offer their own prayers (be they christian or not) for the dead? Either way, this needs clarification. I haven't edited it myself because I'm new to Wikipedia and unsure about how the whole process works.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Prettypedantic (talk • contribs)  February 2, 2006, 02:06.
:Usually the author means what he says. It is not appropriate to note whether sharia allows Muslims to lament loudly or not. There have already been attempts to insert this sort of parallelism into the article, but the article is about dhimmis, so let's stick to the subject.--Pecher 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However this phrasing is incorrect. The phrasing implies that only dhimmis were restricted in this matter, when in reality all members of the state had these requirements whether they were Muslim or not. A more accurate phrasing of the term would be to mention that this applied to everyone and dhimmis were not singled out. To write wording that implies a group was singled out when they were not is not accurate. --OzzieGT 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to take what you see at face value without ascribing to the text any implied meaning. PecherTalk 13:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All text relies on an implied context. Without context, there is no particular reason for any text to be written. You might also say that dhimmis had to bury their dead without choking on a grapefruit. At face value, it is true, but without the context, it isn't a very useful sentence. Clarification is necessary to avoid ambiguity. Pjrich 07:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text contains most of the needed info, that these rules on funerals are inforced due to what muslims are allowed to do due to there faith, it just shows the reason behind the impossition of Muslim religious views.Hypnosadist 14:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  funerals 

message: I was impressed by Jimbo's comment at the top of Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I think it might be helpful if everyone here stopped remarking on each other's behavior and confined discussion to how to edit the article. Let's not have any more comments about 'al-takeyya practicioners' or 'your tedious habit of affecting not to understand' or anything else. No more snarky edit summaries, no more 'You said...' gottchas. If someone else does it, don't respond to it, just let it go. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the half-day since the page has been locked, I haven't seen any specific objection to any specific alleged fact in the Pecher re-write (which I thought was very generous to "the other side" by confining itself completely to history and eschewing examination of contemporary usage). Additionally, given that "one side" includes a member with admin privileges willing to just stamp his boot down to get his way, I'm not exactly enthused over for the prospects of honest inquiry toward a truthful account. Particularly since in the two instances I have seen that boot in action, it came down to protect reverts away from versions with more references.--Mike18xx 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you see your approach to editing as effective, or not? Tom Harrison Talk 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, for the following reason: I am able to very quickly acertain who is serious about revealing a subject as opposed to who is interested in keeping it swept in whole or in part under the rug. Regards editing per se, that's moot at this point; and you'll observe that I wasn't involved at the moment of slam-down.--Mike18xx 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: Mike18xx requested unprotection of this article at WP:RFP. Are we ready to go with that yet? howcheng  {chat} 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion seems to have stalled for days. Let's give it a whirl. Pecher Talk 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. howcheng  {chat} 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: I have read two of her books and was interested more particularly to her treatment of the Ottoman Empire, so I can comment the accuracy of this part only and not the rest of her research, which would be only my impression. From her language, her work tend to be biased but well documented but she seem to jump quickly on conclusion and generalisation from sources that appears to be more restrictive. But overal, I'd qualify her works relevent to the article, if not for her own conclusions at least for the materials she came up with since The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam principal part is the second section(document section) which is impressive (from page 159 to 405), this section contains juristic texts (Muslim) and other relevant records. What is open to critics, it is that she maintains the position and try to support it, more as a lawyer would do, but we can't really discredit the work on this basis, in this type of research this type of literature is generalized and even Lewis isen't exempt of this.
In general my impression of the book is similar to the review of David Thomas published in the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 25, No. 1  (May, 1998), pp. 183-185 
More particularly when he writes: The book uncovers details which must challenge the notion that the dhimma was comparatively fair and liberal. But it will also hopefully provoke refinements and refutations. For while it undoubtedly supports a claim, it does not by any means succeed in proving a thesis.
I think this book should be included as source in the article, because it is notable, and it has been reviewed in a numbers of very serious notable journals and the critics haven't been that harsh with her, but since the notability of this work has been more based on the document section, it is that part that should be the center of our attention and not the section with her opinions. Fad (ix) 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about Bat Ye'or 

message: Urhhkk, vomit, what a disgusting hate-filled page.  Here we read, inter alia that Muslims are fundamentally genocidal fiends who only allow others to live because they are useful.  Where can we read that dhimmis are excluded from some taxes as well as subject to some?  Where can we read that they were exempted from military service?  Where can we read that not every oppression of a minority had anything to do with them being dhimmis?  Where can  we read that taking the worst things that happened at any place and time and presenting them as the facts of every place and time is a pure distortion?  --Zero 12:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your only dispute is with yourself. You first ascribe to the article something that is not in it and then vigorously contest it. "Muslims are fundamentally genocidal fiends..." Where did you find this nonsense outside of your fantasy? "Oppression of a minority..." What about Christians being in a majority in the first several centuries after the Arab conquests? "taking the worst things that happened at any place and time and presenting them as the facts of every place and time" Again, a figment of your imagination. The article describes historical events; try to disprove them if you can. Nowhere does the article say that the same happened always and everywhere; it's just your invention, nothing else. Pecher Talk 12:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's ridiculous to try to put into the article everything that was not required for dhimmis. Contrary to what you say, the article does say that dhimmis were allowed to repair religious buildings, while the source that you have provided, which is not a scholarly, but a popular Q&A book, does not not say it. Pecher Talk 14:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In theory, Jews were not allowed to construct new synagogues. In practice, there was hardly a single Jewish community in the whole Muslim world that didn't build new synagogues.  And the same goes for Christians and churches.  The article lies about the facts.  --05:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: We really can't have things in the article like, "Notice the lack of Muslim sources." Taking no position on the merits, I'm commenting it out; it's inappropriate to include commentary on the article within the article itself. Tom Harrison Talk 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No meta-izing in the article 

message: The Freedom of religion and forced conversions section has a mention of Maimonides converting to Islam at the age of 13. This is not supported by history where the Jews of Cordoba were offered conversion, exile or death and many of them, including Maimonides and his family, chose exile. The entry saying he converted and it was later declared void is erroneous and was removed and replaced with historical fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs) 21:19, February 22, 2006
:Nope. The information in the article is exactly as per the cited source: Bernard Lewis The Jews of Islam p.100. Pecher Talk 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't work this way. You must cite your sources appropriately if you wish them to be included. Pecher Talk 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maimonides 

message: Somebody taged this articel as a hate site. I dont have time to bother with this, they can have it. as is now, the Muslim haters have free hand on the dhimmi and terrorist article, since not many Muslim editors have the time for it. --Striver 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  totalydiputed 

message: This is not a credible article at all. Most of it is based on the writings of Bat Ye’or, a Jewish author who clearly and extremely is biased towards Islam. This is a joke.
The fact that she was born in Egypt and lived under Muslim rule makes here a good spokesperson for people who do live under Muslim rule. The fact that she's a woman and a Jew makes her standing all the better to show how Non-Muslims, Jews and Women are treated in a Muslim world. If your going to discount every Jew who writes about Islam then your just being biased against any source that might say what you don't want said and want to control the topic rather than report on actual events and attitudes Mdinowitz 01:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bat Ye'or never lived as a dhimmi.  In fact she never lived in an Islamic state (your statement is incorrect).  If her experiences in Egypt were bad, that makes her more liable to be biased, not more liable to be unbiased.  This article should be based on the work of critical scholarship, not on the writings of activists.  --Zero 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is such a lame argument. Does everyone thast had some bad expiriance is not able to be objective in her writing ? Zeq 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could go both ways.  The conservative course would be to drop Ye'or and find someone else who echoes her opinion.--Dr.Worm 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bat Ye’or's credibility 

message: Folks, please sign your comments on this page.  The easiest way is to put ~~~~ at the end of your comment. --Zero 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign your comments 

message: I have added the tag, that we are from one side or the other, there is no question that this article in its current form do not conform to the NPOV policy. People have to understand that sourcing something does not equal to prove and present an argument as an established fact. While I think I will regret my involvement since it will possibly drag me in a conflict, I believe I had to do that. Fad (ix) 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: There is a popular propagandistic canard that while dhimmis were obliged to pay jizya, they were "exempted" from zakat. The canard totally misses the whole point of jizya, namly that it was a tax paid by non-Muslims to Muslims, while zakat was a tax paid by Muslims... yes, also for the benefit of Muslims. Lumping the two taxes together is meaningless, as they were altogether different institutions. It is therefore wrong to say that dhimmis were "exempt" from zakat because they paid an altogether different tax serving a different purpose. Within their own communities, dhimmis often paid their own communal taxes: for example, Jewish tzdaka - a precursor of Muslim zakat. These taxes can, in principle, be compared to zakat, but jizya certainly cannot. Pecher Talk 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we ignore your dubious claim about that it was a tax "for the benefit of Muslims" we have still that non-Muslims payed one tax and Muslims another so thay did had to pay one tax, but didn't have to pay another. // Liftarn
Zakat is a religeous(ie self imposed) tax. Jizya is demanded with the dhimmi's(and thier familys) remaining rights as hostage. Hypnosadist 12:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jizya vs. zakat 

message: There is currently an ongoing mediation involving the contents of this article.  Anyone who has been involved in the recent disputes over this article's contents is requested to attend to help achieve consensus.  --Cyde Weys 02:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing mediation 

message: I just shortened the article radically, so we can start anew.
Please only make short changes at a time, so every single dispute
can be discussed here. There's no point in exchanging these totally 
different two versions over and over again. Raphael1 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  radical shortening