Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous

Would be grateful if anyone could write out the word in Arabic. 212.235.40.42 19:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contributer Mustafaa did that.

When the dhimmi concept was introduced in the 8th it was clearly very tolerant by the standards of the time. Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society. An excellent example is the Muslim state of Cordoba in Southern Spain where Christians and Jews prospered. Maimonides, by some considered the greatest Jewish philospher and Talmudic sage, lived here. As late as the 16th century, some argue that religious tolerance was the greatest in Europe within the Ottoman Empire.

That is incorrect. The Hellenistic Empire, Rome, The Ancient East (up until the Muslim invasion) have been all truly religiously tolerant, as they have not differentiated between the followers of one rite or another. This very nice tradition was broken by the Muslims, who essentially made a "convert or die" deal for most of the native population (pagans), and "convert or live like a dog" deal for Jews and Christians. Maimonides left a number of quotes, where he mentions the limitations he suffered from the Arabs, and the predominant anti-Jewish feelings. 1001 Nights are full of description how this or that (positive) hero steals holy books from Christians or Jews. As to the 16th century, they were still burning people in Europe. It's not too hard to be more tolerant than that.
The Muslims did not break this tradition. It was mainly caused by monotheistic religions, which by their very own nature are exclusive. The polytheistic (Pagan) religions before them assimilated gods from other faiths, or found equivalent ones. For example a Hittite goddesses from Syria were adopted by Ancient Egyptians. Jupiter was the equivalent of Zeus, ...etc. When Christianity spread, all this was reversed, and intolerance set in. The Jews attempted to annihilate Cannanites, Philistines and others because of religion (and land too!) Hypatia, for example, was dragged in the streets of Alexandria to her death by a Christian crowd, after many pagan temples were destroyed. To blame it on the Muslims or Arabs shows obvious bias, and lack of objectivity. As of "living like a dog", Christians and Jews continued to live for 14 century under Muslim rule, and their descendants exist up to today. They were neither assimilated, nor were under severe restrictions, otherwise, they would have either perished, or fled. -- Khalid B
Since when have the Roman or Greek empires been part of the 8th century??? Martin
Maybe the Eastern Roman Empire?
Three points: a) Rome was fine with your religion as long as it did not somehow conflict with Imperial authority. The most famous examples, therefore, of Roman "religious intolerance" would be their total extermination of the Celtic Druidic sects and, well, you know, sending all those Christians to the lions. There's also the fairly well-known forced exile and dispersion of the Jews following the national uprising in Judea. b) In 1492, after all the Jews were expelled from Spain, a great number of them went to the Ottoman Empire, which, evidently, was rather happy to have them. A great number of Jews from Italy and other European countries ended up going there following various efforts to dispossess them. Bogomils, and other religious dissenters, found homes under the Sultan. The Orthodox Church continued to operate in the Ottoman Empire. From their perspective, certainly, the religious tolerance was fairly radical, compared to Europe at the time. c) This "religious tolerance," however, was restricted to people of the book, which excluded quite a few other religious faiths, and was not extended to all competing views of religious jurisprudence within Islam itself. Any person deciding to leave the Muslim faith, even for one of the "protected" faiths, was subject to the death penalty.

However, by the standards that have evolved in the Western world since the Enlightment, the dhimmi concept cannot be said to be fully tolerant. In the contemporary Western world, most would say that only complete religious freedom is acceptable. The dhimmi concept does not quite reach that target.

That's a gross underestimation. The Dhimmi concept is in effect, religious segregation of a very severe kind (akin to what the blacks had to face in the 1930s, on a racist ground). It is the definition of a failure to reach religious tolerance.
I'd like to hear your replies to this criticism. These paragraph need serious re-wording, before they can be put back in. --Uri


from people of the Book

Where people of the Book live in an Islamic nation under Sharia law, they are forbidden from being considerd free and equal citizens. By Islamic law they can only liv if they submit to living as a dhimmi (second class protected citizen). Once they giv up equal rights, they are then given a number of rights by the Islamic community, such as the right to freely practice their faith in private. The people of the book had their own courts and jugdes but they could also choose to go to a Muslim qadi. The communities had local representatives, a role which was most often played by the bishop or patriarch. These were responsible for the tenure of the conditions of the contract - peace, obedience and order - between the Muslim ruler and the community. (Hourani, 1991) Dhimmis are also given additional responsibility and burdens, such as the payment of a special tax called jizyah ("skull tax"), but they are exempt from the zakat, the alms tax every Muslims has to pay. If Jews or Christians refuse to accept dhimmi status, the Quran holds that Muslims may declare war on them. Dhimmis were exempt from doing military service. "In the middle of the 19th century the 'protected minorities' were filled with dismay when it was suggested that they should share a common Ottoman nationality with the Muslims, since this would have meant liability for military service." (Gibb, 1968)

"By Islamic law they can only live if they submit to living as a dhimmi (second class protected citizen)" - is a completely cockeyed way of looking at it. What it amounts to is: people of the book, conquered by Muslims, were termed dhimmis, and the new government wasn't allowed to kill them unless they fought it, nor to suppress their religion. Same deal as with any other conquest, apart from the provisos preventing the conquerors from getting unduly nasty - and dhimmitude is not a "choice", but a legal classification. Oh, and "jizyah" does not translate as "skull tax"; it comes from the root jzy, meaning "portion". This source is obviously unreliable. - Mustafaa 07:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I read somewhere that dhimmi status was extended to Hindus under the Mughals?? -- Davidme

I don't know whether it was, but considering the treatment meted out to the Hindus by the Islamic invaders, I doubt it made much difference
Yes, dhimmi status was extended to Hindus under the Mughals. Akbar abolished the Jizyah tax (among other things), and Aurangazb reinstated it later. There were often alliances between Hindu and Muslim segments of society against the Sikh state and later against the British colonial authorities. In the Indian Mutiny both allied against Britain, and it was even declared as Jihad by some, with Bahadur the last Mughal emperor as the (nominal) head of this rebellion -- Khalid B

In the handful of Muslim countries which officially practice Sharia, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran,
Does Iran's Shiite Jafari system come under the "Sharia" tag?

Yes, it does. But they have their own separate interpretation of Islamic law -- Khalid B

I redid the layout of the lists of rights/obligations/restrictions, as well as a few small copyedits. The list reformatting is potentially controversial (it might take up more room), but it conforms better to Wikipedia style (no periods on the end of lists, more broken up lists). If this feels too much like "fast facts" from a bad high school textbook, feel free to revert that part -- I won't be offended. --Mgreenbe 17:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Marked muslims in Spain

Also, dhimmis were sometimes forced to wear distinct clothing, such as forcing all Jews to wear a yellow badge, a practice that was also done to Muslims under Christian rule in Spain.

Do you mean that Moriscos or Mudejars wore a yellow badge? When? I knew that they wore characteristic clothes, but my understanding is that they simply maintained their clothes, different from those of Christians. -- Error 01:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, they did not wear it because they wanted to. There was an institutionalized dress code enforced, mainly by the Catholic Church and the Spanish monarchy. It was put into effect, and there were fines imposed if Mudejars wore dresses that they were not allowed to. Now, it could have been lax at time, and enforced at others, but it was there. Check "The Royal Treasure: Muslim Communities Under the Crown of Aragon in the Fourteenth Century" by John Boswell. p 32-33, 113, 330-333, and 399.
Some forms of oppression were designed to be obvious. The IV Lateran Council of 1215 had demanded. that all Christian monarchs force Muslims and Jews within their dominions to wear distinctive clothing, so they could be easily identified, and these demands were repeated by Honorius III and Gregory IX.(7) Spanish monarchs acceded to these without protest, and even added to them. Between the early thirteenth century, when the laws were enacted, and the mid- fourteenth, there were certain modifications in the efforts to make the Muslims distinctive. Originally Muslims and Jews had had to wear a distinctive outer garment like a cleric's cape, round and gathered, with a hood, and not striped, green, or bright red. They could not wear rings of gold or precious stones, and had to grow their beards long and cut their hair round rather than in Christian fashion. In the documents of the reign of Peter the Ceremonious there is no reference to distinctive clothing, though the allusions to the laws regarding hair and beard styles are numerous and varied. It appears, indeed, that either the laws were no longer enforced or that the wearing of the specified clothing had become so customary that infractions did not occur. At least two considerations give greater weight to the former possibility: (1) there is no reason to suppose the clothing would have become a part of Mudéjar life when the hair styles did not, and the many violations of the rules about the latter make it quite clear that they were not an accepted part of Muslim life; (2) of the Muslims emigrating from Valencia whose clothing was assessed as part of their departure fee, only a few are described as wearing either of the two articles of clothing supposedly required of Mudéjares. The penalty for being found abroad in violation of the distinctive appearance code varied extravagantly. From l347 on, all Muslims from royal jurisdictions could only be fined -- a maximum of one gold doublet -- for such infractions, while other Muslims found guilty of the same offense were sold into slavery. Conscientious nobles -- or those simply afraid of defecting vassals -- often applied to the king to have the privilege enjoyed by royal Mudéjares extended to their vassals. Sometimes the privilege was granted as a favor to the noble; others the Saracens themselves paid for it.
Also, note that the practice was not limited to Spain, but was more general than that, for example, Pope Innocent III in 1215 issued a decree as part of the Fourth Council of the Lateran that Muslims and Jews shall wear a special dress to distinguish them from Christians. Since Spain had the most Muslim minority, it was applied there more often. -- Khalid B
Thank you for the detailed explanation. -- Error 01:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are welcome, Error. My pleasure indeed. It refreshes my memory to dig up info I read a long time ago. As you see, half truths are often repeated so much that they become accepted as facts, while they are not true. For example, differentiation in dress was not limited to Muslim lands, but practiced on Christian ones too, and condoned by the Church. It was a different time, differet standards, and we often fail to put things into their correct historical or social context. -- Khalid B
Funny, I was reading about Moriscoes and found that, in the 16th century, they were forbidden to wear their traditional dressing. -- Error 00:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No contradiction there. You may be confusing Mudejars (up to the conquest of Granada in 1492) and Moriscos (about 1500 on) (however note that treatment varied depending on where they were, and who ruled the area, ...etc. This is not a hard and fast rule). When they were Mudejars, they were still Muslims, allowed their own mosques, dress, butchers, marriage, language, ...etc. with many restrictions (marked dress, prohibited to call for prayer, carry arms, ...etc). When they were forcefully convered (started in the late 15th century), they were forced to confirm to everything Christian and not have any distinction. So the Arab dress, Arabic language, ...etc. were forbidden, not to mention Islam itself of course. In the mean time, there was another sort of discrimination that emerged. There was a big distinction between "old Christians" and "new Christians" (nuevo cristiano, converso, morisco, marrano), even in the church records that had births, baptisms, marraiges, and deaths by the 1550. When the time came for expulsion (1610), the new Christians were expelled, and were easy to indentify because of those records. They have been "identifiable" up to that time. So it all depended on the time period, the location and their status then. Makes sense? KB 14:49, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

The references in the article are almost all anti-Muslim with bias showing all over. Bat Y'eor is an anonymous person taking a Jewish pseudonym, and her work has been shown to be strongly biased. Encyclopedia Judaica would hardly be a neutral source on Islam. Khalid Duran's book has been shown to be less than neutral, and also being funded by Jewish organizations with an axe to grind.

I added a reference from a respected contemporary Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Too bad the english translation of the book is not longer online after his site go reorganized.

I also added some quotes from it on whether a Muslim can be executed if he kills a dhimmi, showing the previous quotes to be one sided half truths intended to sway opinions in a certain direction. -- Khalid B

There is no way to speak about dhimmitude without appearing anti-Muslim. Its perpetuation is an abomination to those of us who adhere to a post-enlightenment worldview. Your attempt to invoke neutrality -- a principle of the enlightment -- to draw attention away from the abomination of dhimmitude is readily transparent.

Disputed sources and references

The neutrality of the links and references below are disputed

In other words, anyone who speaks out openly about this discriminatory Muslim practice can not be trusted? Nonsense. These well-referenced and academic sources are only "disputed" by those who are embarassed by the existence of this heinous discrimination. Similarly, we can find some white people in the USA who who "dispute" sources about how black people were (are are treated) in parts of the USA. But that doesn't mean that the sources are wrong. It is a natural reaction to distrust critical academic sources which point out truths that are hard to accept. But here on Wikipedia we are obligated to do so, even if these truths make us feel umconfortable. RK
We find the same hard-to-accept truths in our discussions of Judaism and Christianity. I myself was accused of anti-Semitism, merely because I publicly wrote about the discriminatory way that some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups treated their fellow Jews. My critics ignored the fact that my statements were provably true, and referenced from multiple academic sources, including sources from Orthodox Jews. The simple fact is that many people become uncomfortable with criticism of others within their own group, and thus we all have a knee-jerk reaction to say "This is a distortion" or "This is not NPOV". I used to feel (and say) the exact same thing myself. But I have come to realize that such analyses, when backed by reliable sources, are very often fair, accurate, and NPOV. RK 15:00, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
The accusation being made against these sources is not accuracy or inaccuracy (although that would certainly bear looking into.) It's neutrality. Citing "Bat Ye'or" on dhimmitude is like citing Lenin on the evils of Tsarism; both may well be right - and probably are most of the time - but their known agenda inherently renders them suspect, and there are perfectly good scholars out there with much less of a political agenda who should be cited instead. Failing that, what should be cited here are the original sources - the major works of Islamic law. Mustafaa 19:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to add to Mustafaa's point: If the sources were a mix of Muslim and Non-Muslim, or biased and neutral ones, at least there would be some balance. But to have ALL THE SOURCES by people KNOWN to have an axe to grind with Islam and Muslims is single sided. When the sources are mainly anti-Muslim (Enc Judaica, Bat Ye'or [a pseudonym], anti Muslim web sites) or sponsored by anti-Muslims (e.g. Khaled Durran's history is less than agreable), there is something wrong here. And non of them are academic sources that stood up to fair peer review. I do not mind presenting a few sources that tell the other side, but for heaven's sake, some balance is required. I know it is difficult, specially on religious or political points in a wiki environment, but we should try. KB 14:49, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)
I find the position of KB and Mustafaa to be ridiculous. By their logic, they would censor all articles on slavery because those against slavery "have an axe to grind"! This article is supposed to represent a number of different points of view, written in NPOV style. We don't censor major, widely-held points of view because we think that their view is not "balanced"! They admit that the facts are true, and they certainly widely held. So let us strive to incorporate these views into the article, and not make out Muslims to live in some fantasy-land where Jews and Christians were usually treated as equals. RK 19:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Apr. 23

I re-added the italicized portions here: "Christians and Jews who submitted to their rulers were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society." Mustafaa deleted it arguing: " 'who submitted' is redundant; what state anywhere permits people to fight it?" I think this objection is irrelevant. Every state required submission on the part of conquered peoples, but this can't really be described as "peaceful" without a caveat. It's natural for people to not want to be conquered and to resist, so there has to be a threat of violence to keep them in line. The fact that this was true in other countries (the sentence immediately preceding in the article states that Muslim countries were relatively tolerant), does not make it any less true as regards dhimmis. - Nat Krause 07:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That assumes a situation where the dhimmis were conquered peoples; that was certainly true in many cases, but not all. For instance, the Sephardi Jews who took refuge in the Ottoman Empire were never conquered by the Ottomans; but the threat of violence if they were to rebel was still there, just as it was against any other rebels, Muslim or dhimmi. That's why I think it's superfluous: people who have not "submitted to their rulers" were (and are) subject to the threat of violence irrespective of their religion, in practically all countries. - Mustafaa 07:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I think that, in regard to accuracy, it does not require that assumption. It's true that people who do not submit to their rulers are always subject to the threat of violence; therefore, it's never really correct to say without qualification that the people of a state live peacefully. In a lot of situations, this is kind of a theoretical point, because the people of a state tend to have a nationalistic loyalty to their government, so the threat is arguably unnecessary. The question here is relevance. In that regard, I am making the assumption you mention. I think this is reasonable because, while dhimmi status may have been applied to some immigrants, the mass of them in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, India, Europe, etc., were indeed descendents of conquered peoples -- the concept of dhimmi was originally invented to deal with these sort of conquered peoples. They were in a different position than, say, a Frenchman in France or a white American in the early US. In the old days it was very common, as the article makes clear, for people to conquer each other, but it is also common for conquered people to want to resist their rulers. - Nat Krause 15:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nationalism is in many ways a rather anachronistic construct for the medieval Middle East; even so great a medieval sociologist as Ibn Khaldun, though he accurately described tribalism - the prototype of nationalism - for Bedouin tribes, regarded any analogous phenomenon as an impossibility for city dwellers (of any religion.) And, while in the original case it was indeed Muslims who were the conquerors and not the conquered, that situation did not last long at all - for most of medieval Middle Eastern history (that is, most of the history of the dhimmi concept), the political scene consisted of various groups of Muslims (and non-Muslims - Crusaders, Mongols, etc.) conquering other Muslims. And rebellion certainly didn't take long to become a major part of Islamic history - see Kharijites, Shiites, Abbasids, etc... So the upshot is: for most of Islamic history, the possibility of rebellion - and its complement, the threat of violence - was as real with regard to the Muslim population as to the non-Muslim one. - Mustafaa 06:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nat, I think that Mustafaa has a point that the wording is too harsh. Perhaps something along the lines of "who resided in, and acknowledged the soverignty of, Muslim rulers". How about that? - KB 23:58, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
Mustafaa, I'm not sure I follow you. To say that the threat of violence "was as real with regard to the Muslim population as to the non-Muslim one" is irrelevant with regard to describing the condition of the latter. Given that Muslim vs. Muslim as well as Muslim vs. non-Muslim (and non vs. non) rebellion and fighting were a major part of history, if any thing this would emphasize the inaccuracy of saying that any of the subjects lived "in peace" without qualification. As for Kbahey's suggestion, since, in my opinion, the current wording is neither inaccurate nor misleading, I don't see the problem with it, but your version is pretty much "six of one, half-dozen the other". I'm not sure whether "sovereignty" is a relevant concept for pre-modern political structures, though. - Nat Krause 05:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How about ""Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society, on the condition (also required of Muslim subjects) of submission to their rulers." That highlights the point that this is even-handed - the medieval person wasn't a citizen, he was a subject... - Mustafaa 06:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. - Nat Krause 11:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dhimmi's well-to-do?

One of the sentences apparently recently deleted by an anon, and then restored, stated "in reality, the average dhimmi in a Muslim state was more well-to-do than an average Muslim, a disparity that continues till today in many Muslim countries." What is the source for this claim? Jayjg 17:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like the anti-Semitic propaganda of 'Ewige Jude', which claimed that Jews in Germany were invariably far better-off than good, solid Aryan Germans were. Dogface

Some issues to which I am not sure

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

  1. Some of the conditions here are not related to dhimmi law, but to pact of ommar which should be excluded in this context.
  2. 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 [1]


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)

[2]

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)

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) 00:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well answer is no. look up net for details.

Zain 21:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your response doesn't make sense. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pact of Umar

IMHO, we need an article on Pact of Umar: [3], [4] and this article needs a section/link to it.

  • We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
  • We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
  • We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
  • We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
  • We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
  • We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
  • We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear.
  • We shall not adopt their kunyas.(the use of their epithets)
  • We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
  • We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
  • We shall not sell fermented drinks.
  • We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
  • We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the belts round our waists.
  • We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices in our churches in any manner offending the honor of the Muslims.
  • We shall not parade carrying our palm branches [on Palm Sunday] or hold in public our Ba'ooth [Easter Monday's prayer]
  • We shall not raise our voices at the burial of our dead.
  • We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
  • We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
  • We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
  • we shall not strike a Muslim.
  • We shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims
  • Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.

Any good reason why this article doesn't list these obligations? Also, Umar II is totally silent on this. Why? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some work to do. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the second question, probably because, a. this pact was supposedly with Umar I, not II (contrary to a bunch of ill-informed Christian sites), and b. because historians take its attribution to him with more than a grain of salt anyway. - Mustafaa 00:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cf. your own cite, which speaks of Umar ibn al-Khattab. - Mustafaa
huh? Was it Umar II or Umar ibn al-Khattab? I have seen some claim that this pact was by Umar II, and others claims it was Umar ibn al-Khattab. If it's Umar II, then it has less significance (Umar II was just an Umayyad Caliph for three years). What he did or didn't do means very little compared to Umar ibn al-Khattab actions. OneGuy 03:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the Etymology section, shouldn't something be said about dhimma or contract governing the dhimmi's servitude? (See Bernard Lewis link) Nobs 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies

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)

" 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."

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)

This article is an inaccurate JOKE

The article fails to mention what Dhimmitude is designed to do - slowly strangle out non-Muslim religions.

It does this by:

  1. - Jizya tax, discriminatory tax (mentioned).
  2. - Prohibition on Muslims converting away to other religions (Death Sentence for Apostasy, not even mentioned).
  3. - Prohibition on building new non-Muslim houses of worship or expanding existing ones. (not even mentioned).
  4. - Prohibition on public signs of non-Muslim worship:
-Non-Muslim houses of worship cannot display symbols of their dieties.
-Non-Muslims may not pray in public where Muslims could hear them.
-Non-Muslims may not sell non-Muslim books to Muslims
-Non-Muslims may not invite Muslims to join them for worship.

The article also fails utterly to mention the similarities between Dhimmitude, Apartheid, and Jim Crow.

Someone should fix this. [removed personal attack] KaintheScion

I put in the edits, only to see [someone] come by and wipe them clean without any mention in this discussion section. Though looking at his past contribs, he'll likely scream "reference reference reference" over every letter in the edits [...]. If he RV's it again I'll have to report him for vandalism yet again. ElKabong
References are good; if you can provide them, then he won't be able to revert so easily, will he? Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
True, but Yuber routinely takes it to an obscene level - look at his Talk:Saudi Arabia nonsense about whether or not Iran was the "only" Islamic country with religious police for a pretty good example of his MO.
Relatedly, I left out the mention of "slowly strangl[ing] out non-Muslim religions" because I was 100% sure that would be interpreted as POV and cause a revert war. ElKabong
Yes, he does that, and then makes his own claims based on no sources at all, or on sources that have no backup for his claims. Nevertheless, sources are crucial for preventing him (and others) from reverting your edits. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
ElKabong is just a sockpuppet of KaintheScion. As Jayjg has so wisely said before, sockpuppets should just be ignored as they are a waste of time.Yuber(talk) 23:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Questions for you Jaijg:
  1. - Why did you remove the sentence regarding comparisons to other oppressive systems?
  2. - Here's your references for the Saudi portion:

40 Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Religious Activity By Saudi Religious Police: 'For Trying to Spread the Poison and their Beliefs' Saudi Arabia's religious apartheid I am putting the section back. It is both factual and relevant. ElKabong

Where is the source that says non-Muslims are considered dhimmi under Saudi law, and that is why they are treated this way? Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, why don't we go straight to the horse's mouth on the matter? Speaking of which, I forgot one other prohibition: non-Muslim males may not marry Muslim females, but Muslim males may freely marry non-Muslim females. KaintheScion
Why don't you quote them talking about dhimmis? Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe because the page linked does not use the word "dhimmi"? —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Some aspects of Dhimmitude also apply in other Muslim nations; the Coptic Christians have such a situation in Egypt

Who says that the situation of the Coptic Christians in Egypt is one of "dhimmitude", rather than garden-variety repression of a religious minority? Do they pay the jizyah? Are they not allowed to build churches? Are they prohibited from riding, or do they face extra restrictions on carrying weapons? Are they not allowed to proselytize? What aspects apply, exactly? —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Yuber, I didn't mean to revert your edit. I was removing a dubious addition (the italicized sentence above) and since I was reverting, didn't hit an edit conflict. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Ah sorry, I edited over yours because I wanted to keep some things that were proposed earlier while keeping the statements about how enforced restrictions were.Yuber(talk) 23:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Kharaj

much discussion moved to Talk:Kharaj.

Slavery

Yuber: Here's the source [5]; 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)

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)
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)

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)

Nobs, the next time Yuber pulls this bullshit, report him for his vandalism. He's getting beyond ridiculous. Must be taking kitman and taqiyya rather seriously. KaintheScion

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)
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)
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)
duh, Muslims I guess I meant to say. Sorry, my parents were cousins. Nobs 03:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
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)

Restrictions on Dhimmis

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)

links removed

KainTheScion/ElKabong reverted my removal of these links, so here's a more detailed explanation than can fit in an edit summary:

KainTheScion/ElKabong might wish to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before readding these links. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement

Mirv, please stop doing that. The wording "This right does not exist in some countries which enforce dhimmitude" is no different than the wording "this was not always respected" under the "right not to be enslaved." [personal attack removed]. ElKabong


True, after the enumeration of the right not to be enslaved, a concrete example (the devshirmeh) illustrates how the right was not always respected. Feel free to provide a similar example for this point: which countries did not allow choice of religious leaders and when? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
In that case ElKabong's edit - which turns the fact that Saudi Arabia does not honor this into an example - is the correct edit.
Or might be, if Saudi Arabia actually were an example. - Mustafaa 21:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
SA is a perfectly legitimate example or the text you reverted TO would not list it, Mustafaa. ElKabong
No it isn't. As that text correctly notes, in SA the point is moot. - Mustafaa 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
(Mustafaa beat me to it) Saudi Arabia is not a good example: non-Muslims are not allowed to live within the state and practice their religion under leaders chosen by the Muslim authorities, they are not (in theory) allowed to practice their religion at all, under whatever religious leaders. Now, if an Islamic state exists (or existed) in which dhimmi were allowed to live and practice their religion, but were not allowed to choose their own religious leaders, that would be a good example. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Charles, having been to the KSA, non-Muslim visitors to the kingdom ARE treated as Dhimmis but are denied the right to choose their own leaders in the kingdom. It is a good example. Enviroknot
If they were treated as dhimmis, they would have religious leaders to be chosen. Also, they would pay jizyah. Do they? - Mustafaa 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, they are treated as Dhimmi, and allowed to enter the country under Islamic verses which state that allowing non-Muslims to pass through Muslim lands is acceptable as long as they obey key precepts of Dhimmitude, such as not preaching their own religion or practicing it openly. The Jizyah is for permanent residents - E.G. CITIZENS - and not travelers. Enviroknot
Visitors like these are called musta'min in classical Islamic law and were in a separate category from dhimmi; they remained subjects of the authority in their home state and, I would guess, part of that state's religious structure as well. They were considered dhimmi only if they overstayed their visas. Is this how Saudi Arabia handles foreign workers? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
This is an obvious POV. Dhimmis do not exist anymore. The foreign workers in Saudi Arabia are anything but Dhimmis. They live in gorgeous multi-million dollar compounds and are protected by the state. See Dhahran for an example. Also, am I being too hasty when I assume that Enviroknot is just another one of the many aliases of ElKabong/KaintheScion/Yhulkop?Yuber(talk) 00:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, the condition of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule all over the Middle East is something that Muslim countries should be ashamed of, and you should be fully aware of this. It is true that foreign dignitaries visiting the KSA are treated well, but common citizens who come over, either because work requires it or for some other reason, are not treated as you describe. This is especially true of women who visit the country for any reason.
When you try to claim that Dhimmi do not exist anymore, right away you prove what POV you are trying to push. Please stop acting this way, you and Mustafaa are contributing nothing constructive to the dialogue.
Additionally, I must point out that I now fully understand why ElKabong acted the way he/she did; your intransigence and continual pushing of misinformation and propaganda is most disheartening, as is your tendency to revert without proof rather than to seek a consensus.Enviroknot

It's revealing that "Enviroknot" replies to Yuber, but ignores Mustafaa's pertinent questions (ignoring which is contrary to Wikipedia:Wikiquette, incidentally: "Don't ignore questions."). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, you're in no position to talk. I've seen you breach Wikipedia policy so many times recently that for you to lecture on Wikiquette is laughable. Enviroknot
  1. It's interesting that you admit that you're not a newcomer. The childish insults are gone, which is good, but you still need to brush up on collaboration skills. If you survive the call for arbitration against you, that's something for you to work on.
  2. If I've breached Wikipedia policy, why has no-one but you noticed? Or is it the evil cabal of admins or which I'm presumably part?
  3. You still refuse to answer the perfectly reasonable questions, and trying to change the subject doesn't hide that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

While I don't know if Saudi Arabia's non-Muslim workers are considered dhimmis in Saudi law, I view Yuber's claim that they "live in gorgeous multi-million dollar compounds and are protected by the state" as an apologetic whitewash, rather than an accurate representation of the status of guestworkers in Saudi Arabia. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Mel Etitis has fraudulently "removed personal attacks" from here twice now. He is in violation of Wikipedia: Remove Personal Attacks which states that It's important not to change the overall meaning. Mel Etitis does not care about this. In fact, he prides himself on deliberately "removing personal attacks" in a way as to completely change the meaning of what has been said.
  • My statement is not a personal attack; I am not attacking the individual, but rather the nature of the argument made. As well, I don't view the argument as merely "incorrect", but rather as an "apologetic whitewash". Please review the No personal attacks policy; the statements do not qualify under that policy, and the changes are altering my meaning. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, accusing someone of writing an "apologetic whitewash" is at best quite rude, and certainly does nothing to raise the tone of this discussion. As to the status of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, I think "live in gorgeous multi-million dollar compounds and are protected by the state" is a very accurate description as far as Western ones are concerned, while non-Western ones are discriminated against whether they're Muslim or non-Muslim. - Mustafaa 16:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
One can be accurate and "rude" at the same time. Regarding the Western vs. non-Western foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure the latter vastly outnumber the former, and represent a serious issue, as various Human Rights groups (and others) have pointed out. As to whether this has anything to do with dhimmi, it looks like original research to me, and I'd object to entering the claim that it does without seeing some reasonable source which makes the claim. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Military

It is well-documented that non-Muslims who served in the military were exempt from Jizyah.Yuber(talk) 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

IF you can source that, yuber, put it in. In the meantime, stop reverting without cause, and ESPECIALLY check for other edits. Your revert was a violation of policy. ElKabong
I've already sourced it many times, Kain/Yhulkop/whatever other sockpuppet you use now. It is also in the jizya article. Here is the exact quote:

"Thomas Arnold states that the jizya was exempted from those non-Muslims who served in the Muslim army: "such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighbourhood of Antioch, who made peace with the Muslims,promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty. When the Arab conqu"[11]Yuber(talk) 23:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

An earlier an more direct source; it will be a double translation and i will use the turkish transcriptions of the arabic names: According to Futuhu'l-Buldan (Conquest of the Lands by el-Belazuri (death CE 892)) which in turn sites earliar accounts "Ebu Ubeyde b. el-Cerrah made a compact with the Samaritans; they would serve muslims as spies and guides and be exempt from jizya in turn, in addition to having their lands back. Yezid b. Muaviye later introduced haraj to their lands." Exemption from poll tax for those serve in military -even in supportive roles as seen in the example i've given- is a well-documented fact. It should be stated in the dhimmi article.--Calm 18:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, Islamic states regularly recruited non-Muslims, especially for wars against other Islamic states: cf. Mamluk, janissary, saqaliba. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)~

What does that have to do with jizya? His single claim was about jizya, not the Turkish janissaries or the mamelukes. Mamelukes were actually slaves that later took power and formed their own dynasties.Yuber(talk)
Also, mamelukes were all converted to Islam, which makes them non-Dhimmis. I don't really think the janissaries qualified as dhimmis either, but I still added a reference to them in the article.Yuber(talk) 23:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, someone was claiming that non-Muslims weren't allowed to serve in the army of an Islamic state, which was obviously incorrect. Perhaps the Mamluks are not a good counterexample, but the janissaries certainly are: they were mostly Christians from the Balkans. —Charles P. (Mirv) 11:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Early janissaries were converts, later they were recruited from muslim population; so any arguments involving them and jizya are irrelevant.--Calm 17:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As it has been pointed out, the janissaries were Christian children abducted by the Islamic state, converted to Islam, and trained and brainwashed into being loyal soldiers. You can't seriously use this as an example of non-Muslims serving in the military. Secondly, those non-Muslims who were allowed to join the military WERE exempted from jizya but rarely ever allowed to reach high ranking positions in the military. And then there is the fact that only Jewish and Christian non-Muslims ("People of the Book") had any official status that allowed them to join the military. If you weren't Jewish or Christian, you would be lucky if the Islamic state didn't just kill you or forcibly convert you and instead "allowed" you to pay jizya like the "People of the Book." --Zeno of Elea 05:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits Today

  1. 1 - The term literally means "protected person". - I would feel MUCH better if this were sourced somewhere.
  1. 2 - I have added reference to Surah 9:29 under the "Background" section; the question of whether Dhimmitude requires degradation seems to be answered by this commentary by a the Progressive Muslim Scholar Sayyed Al-Qimni regarding the curriculum taught at Al-Azhar University in Cairo.

Enviroknot 02:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. We don't normally demand sources for translations like this, unless there's some controversy; given that it matches the etymology in the following section (which you haven't disputed), I don't really see what the problem is.
  2. The Surah 9:29 reference wasn't obviously about dhimmis, and didn't really add anything anyway. I might be wrong about that, so other comments would be welcome.
  3. The Sayyed Al-Qimni piece was presented wrongly (he claims that one university teaches this stuff; the text that you added claimed that it was taught at universities including that one. Why? I've moved it to the appropriate section, later in the article, and corrected it pending a source for the more general claim. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. The translation is either incorrect or incomplete; I have seen it translated as "in the care of", "protected person", or "under dominion of", which have different meanings. With a word as charged as this, sourcing translations is necessary.
  2. The text of Surah 9:29 is quite clear - The Muslims are supposed to stop making war on the infidels once they pay the "tax" (sometimes in other places this is translated as "tribute"; the authorized translation at submission.org uses the word tax). This is the essence of Dhimmitude.
  3. No problem with the move, it fits that section just fine. The edit needs work, and you need to read the linked article again: his target is not just Al-Azhar, but the books used in the curriculum, which are used in many more Islamic universities.Enviroknot 17:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Enviroknot, you are being ridiculous when you dispute the meaning of a Semitic root that is known by most linguists. I have reverted your latest edits because "dhimmitude", a word coined by the terrorist Bachir Gemayel in the 70's, did not exist at the time of the writing of the Qur'an. I do appreciate Mel Etitis's NPOV edits.Yuber(talk) 17:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, if it's "known by most linguists" then you should have no problem finding a reference for it. As for your reverting the other edits, I refer you to Wikipedia policy: do NOT revert wholesale when a simple edit can fix your concerns. I am reverting back, if you revert again I am reporting you for trying to start a revert war. This behavior on your part is well documented by multiple users and needs to stop.Enviroknot 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Try User:Gilgamesh and User:Mustafaa for people knowledgeable in Semitic languages.Yuber(talk) 20:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
That is still not providing a citation... I have no recourse but to report you for trying to start a revert war.Enviroknot 20:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently dhimmi comes from the word dhimma, meaning "treaty". I'm not sure why that makes dhimmi mean "protected people" as opposed to "treaty people". Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thus the reason I made that edit, and why I have asked Yuber for a source - which he refuses to provide, and has instead reverted twice (destroying not just that edit, but the edits on Surah 9:29 and the referenced work on university textbooks in the process).Enviroknot 21:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert in Arabic; someone who was would be extremely useful here. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, check with those linguists. On a side-note, Enviroknot has been reported for a 3RR.Yuber(talk) 21:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of Surah 2:29 is good and relevant, it is quoted nearly universally in Islamic defenses of the concept of Dhimmitude. I would suggest including a few others but you could fill a whole article with nothing but Koranic verses that are the basis for Dhimmitude.80.237.206.62 03:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert here, but that verse doesn't appear to be relevant. This article itself says that the word Dhimmi originally applied to Jews and Christians, peoples who weren't "enemies of God" but rather, from Islam's point of view, misguided followers of God. If someone can reference a scholarly external source (not simply text of the verse) that backs up your usage though, that would be good. --bainer (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
That was my concern about it, yes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For dhimma, the Sakhr dictionary gives the following definitions:

  • custody , compact , care , safeguard , security
  • receivables
  • debt , liability
  • guaranty , guarantee , security
  • conscience

It also gives al-Muhit's definition:

  • الذِّمِّيُّ : المُعَاهدُ الذي أُعطِيَ عَهداً يَأْمَنُ بِهِ على مالِهِ وعِرضِهِ ودِينه
dhimmi: a person given a covenant guaranteeing his money, honor, and religion .

and al-Wasit:

  • "رَجُلٌ ذِمِّيٌّ" : الَّذِي أُعْطِيَ الذِّمَّةَ، أَيْ أُعْطِيَ العَهْدَ وَالأَمَانَ لِيأْمَنَ بِهِ عَلَى مَالِهِ وَعِرْضِهِ وَدِينِهِ.
"dhimmi people": those given the dhimma, ie those given the covenant guaranteeing their money, honor, and religion.

while Lisan al-Arab says:

وفي الحديث ذكر الذِّمَّة والذِّمامِ، وهما بمعنى العَهْد والأَمانِ والضَّمانِ والحُرْمَةِ والحق، وسُمِّيَ أَهل الذِّمَّةِ ذِمَّةً لدخولهم في عهد المسلمين وأَمانهم.
and in hadith the terms dhimma and dhamam are used, with the meaning of covenant and security and guarantee and inviolability and right, and the "people of the dhimma" are so named for their entrance into the covenant and security of the Muslims.

So here's your cites... - Mustafaa 18:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I fail to see where that makes a "literal" meaning of "protected people" - though someone's placing on the page earlier that the "protection" was similar to that which shopkeepers purchase from a Yakuza group is an apt comparison.Enviroknot 01:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's correct. "Dhimmi" literaly means "protected person" but it's the type of "protection" offered by the Mafia or the Yakuza. If you pay them for their "protection" then they won't kill you, and if you refuse to pay them for their "protection" then you're unprotected and they'll kill you. --Zeno of Elea 05:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heads of State

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)

The whole section should probably go; it's just an argument, and original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Right. If nothing else, it's not relevant to this article. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Visigothic law

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

Psychological Aspects of Dhimmitude

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) A Dhimmi

Liberation Party

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)

--193.82.152.149 09:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Hizb tahrir are the largest Islamist opposition force in the central asian states. They are probably the most widesrpead trans-national party in the muslim world, from Tunis to Indonesia. They also are a vanguardist party who have argued most for the establishment of a Caliphate, which is the only capacity in which Dhimmi (this article) and the rules of Dhimmis is relevant. Hence their view is very relevant to this article, as they have been the ideological influence of many other groups, who want a Caliph, and hence to re-enstate the position of Dhimmi fo non-muslim citizens.

That's rather disputable. In most of the Arab world, including for example Palestine where the party was founded, it's a very small, not to say insignificant, minority. The Muslim Brothers are far more influential. I have to admit I don't know very much about politics in Central Asia, and H al-Tahrir may well be more influential there. In any case, this chunk needs at least to be edited down to a more proportionate length. Palmiro | Talk 17:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jordan and Saudi Arabia

Today's addition to the article:

"Jordan forbids Jews from becoming citizens. Saudi Arabia forbids Jews from entering the country and forbids all non-muslims from entering the city of Mecca." There is no evidence presented that this is related to the question of the dhimma status: either evidence indicating that these measures are relevant to the topic should be given, or the material should be deleted. Palmiro | Talk 22:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Do Jews not qualify as "living in a Muslim state who is a member of an officially tolerated non-Islamic religion." Certainly, if they do, this is relevant. Are the statements true? If not, they should be deleted from racial separatism. If they are true, I don't understand how Jayjg can call them anti-Arab propaganda. Jim Apple 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
While generally true (though not completely factually correct), what does it have to do with dhimmi laws? Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Jews are dhimmi. These laws restrict Jews. Therefore, these laws restrict dhimmi, no? They are therefore dhimmi laws, right? Please excuse me if I have the plural wrong.
Residents of Muslim states who are not Muslums and not considered dhimmi should be covered in this article. Jim Apple 21:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that either Jordanian or Saudi law considers Jews to be dhimmis? Dhimmi laws didn't forbid Jews to live in Muslim states, but instead imposed the jizya on them and a number of other restrictions. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
They are dhimmi by definition, no? They are non-Muslim and live in Muslim countries. What could exclude them from being dhimmi?
I reiterate -- If there is some mistake in the definition on the page, we should cover it. If there are non-dhimmi non-Muslims non living in Muslim states, that should be noted in the article. Will someone with more knowledge than I do so? Jim Apple 05:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Jordanian law is not Sharia. Does Saudi law define Jews as dhimmis? Jayjg (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dhimma status is not a matter of being a non-Muslim in a "Muslim country" (which is an irrelevance as well as not very meaningful - "in an Islamic state" would make sense though). It is a particular status which historically applied to non-Muslims living under Islamic rule in states that applied a traditional interpretation of shari'a law. As the article shows, there were other considerations involved apart from the jizya and military service, but those were clearly the most distinguishing features of the system in pre-modern states.

In Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and under the Palestinian Authority, there is full legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, but there are separate legal systems for personal status issues in most of those countries - as there are in Lebanon and I think Israel. The important point is that Christian, Jewish, Sabaean, and Samaritan citizens in those five countries are considered full equal citizens. The situation is slightly different in Iran, and completely different in Saudi as far as I know. Palmiro | Talk 19:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the claim that Jews are full citizens of Jordan seems quite odd; as far as I know there are no Jewish citizens of Jordan, for precisely the reasons stated above. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That's why I said, Jewish citizens in those countries - I don't think there are any Sabaean citizens in Palestine or Samaritans in Syria either! Palmiro | Talk 22:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying; there are no Jewish citizens of Jordan, nor can there be, by law. So how can you claim that Jewish citizens there are "are considered full equal citizens", when they aren't allowed to become citizens in the first place? Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, I wasn't expressing myself clearly enough. What I should have said was "where there are Christian, Jewish, Sabaean, and Samaritan citizens in those five countries". Obviously, this doesn;t just apply to Jews in Jordan, but also, as I noted above, to Sabaeans in Syria, Palestine Jordan and Egypt (AFAIK), Samaritans in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan, and if things carry on the way they're going, pretty soon there may not be any Christians in Iraq either. Palmiro | Talk 23:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a story (told by Alan Dershowitz, among others) that the Jordanian constitution forbids Jews from becoming citizens. This claim is false as can easily be checked by reading the Jordanian constitution on the web. The origin of the story is in the 1950 law that annexed the West Bank to Jordan and granted citizenship to the Arabs living there. That law had a clause that excluded Jews from gaining citizenship in this way. Some Jews (mostly spouses of Arabs) were already Jordanian citizens. Another example of a way that a halachically Jewish person can become a Jordanian citizen is to be a child of a Jewish mother and a Jordanian father, and I understand that such people exist. --Zero 13:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslim males cannot marry Muslim females (but Muslim males may freely marry non-Muslim females).

I thought Muslims males were only allowed to marry female dhimmis, not other females. Can you clarify? Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is a question of terminological confusion. Dhimmis are protected non-Muslim persons living in an Islamic state, and dhimma status is now moot pretty much everywhere; even the Muslim Brotherhood no longer seem to believe in it (might be wrong there, on reflection I should check). However, the rules about whom a Muslim can marry are a matter of consensus among Muslims generally: a Muslim man may marry a wife from among the People of the Book, generally taken to mean Christians, Jews and Samaritans, and occasionally Zoroastrians, but may not marry an unbeliever; a Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man. This is, therefore, a generally valid prescription which is not related to dhimmi status: it applies equally to a Muslim living in a non-Islamic state where dhimmis do not exist. Of course, originally dhimmi status was intended for the People of the Book, but even where they apply to the same people the two terms mean different things: one is a legal status relative to the state; the other is an expression of a certain commonality between Islam and the preceding Abrahamic religions. The term "people of the book" is found in the Quran whereas the dhimma is a later innovation in response to the challegnes posed by the Islamic conquests under Abu Bakr and Umar.
Furthermore, according to this article at least dhimma status was extended to people who weren't by any reckoning People of the Book, but intermarriage, I'm pretty sure, would not have been acceptable.
I hope that's clearer, sorry about the length. Palmiro | Talk 19:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I was looking for the Quranic reference; it's Surat al-Ma'ida verse 5. Palmiro | Talk 20:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Iran; opening paragraph

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)

Pact of Umar

I didn't think it was disputed that it was the Pact of Umar that established the Dhimmi concept. Take a look here: Pact of Umar: agreement which formed the dhimma, or protection, for non-Muslims under the early Ummah.[12]. Yuber(talk) 01:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, please stop vanadlising my edits of this background section. Last time you moved background material into another section, and cut it down, removing references to the Sunna without reporting this.
Also, referencing a web glossary cannot be taken seriously as evidence that the dhimma is based upon the Pact of Umar and not the Sunna and the Qur'an.
It is clearly Sura 9:29 which establishes the jizya head tax payment as required of dhimmis. This is the Qur'anic basis for the core condition of the dhimma pact. Just because the word 'dhimma' or 'dhimmi' is not in this verse is not reason to discount it.
Islamic jurists who discuss dhimma regulations repeatedly cite Sura 9:29, the sira and hadiths, as the foundation in the Qur'an for the dhimma pact. They regarded 9:29 as the reference point for the way in which dhimmis should make their jizya payment, and for the dhimma conditions required of dhimmis. Some of these jurists are: Al-Suyuti, Al-Zakakhshari, Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, A-Beidawi, Al-Nawawi, Ibn Naqib, Al-Mawardi, Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Abu Yusuf - the list goes on and on. I can provide the source quotations.
This is not 'original research', but part of the well-documented theological history of the dhimma pact. Yes, the Pact of Umar is significant to the historical development of the dhimma, but it is a secondary authority. Eageleswings(talk) 10:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Eagleswings, I have not vandalized your edits. First of all, the origin is the Pact of Umar whether you like it or not. Second of all, Ibn Kathir's quote is included below and wasn't removed. Third of all, I kept your edit which said that some later Islamic jurists justified it by Sura 9.29. It may be your opinion that the Dhimma status is not originally from the Pact of Umar but that is just original research. Yuber(talk) 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yuber - what I had said was that you removed my reference to the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhamamd), not the Qur'an. You misrepresent at another point: I did not say that 'some later jurists justified it by Sura 9:29'. What Islamic opinions written before 1800 can you cite who do not link the dhimma to Sura 9:29? Since there are many who do (e.g. Al-Tabari in his commentary Jami al-Bayan around 900). You refer me to the Wikipedia article on original research. This is what this article says: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources." This exactly describes what I have done. It is NOT original research. On the other hand, you give no primary sources for your allegation that the dhimma arrangements are not based upon the Qur'an. You also give no source for discounting the referernce to the jizya taxation system in Sura 9:29. You give no source for your point of view that it is only 'later' jurists who make this link. Yuber this is vandalism. You have been reported before for vandalism in relation to this article and the related jizya article. STOP this.

Origins

Could someone produced a reputable source showing that the idea originated in Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an? The source given [13] seems to indicate that, but as it's being disputed, it would be good to find a scholarly source who can confirm that the idea stems from there, and not from the Pact of Umar, as Yuber says. [14] SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No source has been provided, so the major scholarly view has been reinstated. Yuber(talk) 10:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sort of jumping in here incautiously given that right at the moment I don't have access to sources to research the question myself, but here goes. While my impression is that that is indeed the general view of scholars, I'd be inclined to be cautious about completely deleting the material referring to the Qur'an. It may be considered notable that well-known commentators on the Qur'an ascribed the origins of the Pact of Omar to surat at-tauba. Of course, it's not surprising that any 'aalim living in a time when the dhimma was applied would seek to find a Quranic justification for it. We need to look into this in more detail, and you may well be right to delete the material pending this. On the whole, this article is woeful and needs a lot of work, something that's slightly surprising given that some quite reasonable sources are amongst those cited at the end of it.Palmiro | Talk 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The consensus view of Islamic commentators and jurists has been that Sura 9:29, together with the precedent of Khaybar, forms the theological basis for the dhimma. Citations from commentaries which confirm this are gathered together in Bostom's recent book on jihad ('The Legacy of Jihad') p.127ff. They include: al-Suyuti (16C), al-Zamakhshari (12 C), Al-Tabari (10C), Al-Bedawi (13C), Said Qutb (20C). Many who have written on the dhimma, from a variety of points of view have made the same point (e.g. Bat Ye'or and Lewis). One may disagree with the writers' biases, but the evidence is beyond dispute.
On the other hand a point which could well be developed further is the precedent in Byzantine anti-Jewish legislation for some of the rules of the dhimma pact.
This article is being pulled backwards and forwards by ideological conflicts,sadly. Eagleswings.
I think that one should try to approach Dhimmi status from a historical viewpoint. If we only have evidence of it starting from the [Pact of Omar], or later, then the article should clearly state that this was the first instance of it being put into practice. --Dr.Worm 08:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some Koranic verses that are very positive toward the Christians. I think that they should be included here, in order to give a fair POV--equitor 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No - the issue is not whether Islam is positive or negative about Christians or being fair or unfair, but what the historical reality of the dhimma was.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhimmi/Archive_1&oldid=1089082932"