Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 8

Removal of sourced material.
Its not clear for me what is already covered.Could someone explain in talk why this information was removed.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

literal meaning of "dhimma"
The reference given for the literal meaning of "dhimmi" is a google search, which is not a reliable source, and the meaning given, "one whose responsibility has been taken" is not meaningful in English. Zerotalk 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was basically referring back to wikipedia, which is like circular referencing. I've fixed it.VR talk  05:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

absolute horse shit
"Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims. Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character"

yeah i guess segregation and apartheid weren't too bad either... oh wait, they were horrible. who wrote this shit? Decora (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are sources for all the information that is present in the article. There is no "shit" in the article, just sourced facts. warrior  4321  23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * disallowing people from testifying in court is much more than a 'symbolic' disability and has a great deal of 'practical' effects. you can see this in every society where 'inability to testify in court' has been practiced, from the american south to apartheid south africa to nazi germany. Decora (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then fix it yourself, stop complaining. warrior  4321  03:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that sentence is nothing but apologetics in action and has no place on wikipedia 188.220.169.56 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about as neutral as claiming that World War 2 was an armed conflict with some human rights violations, technically true but grossly misleading. --93.104.54.152 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is because Wikipedia is run by anti-Semitic Muslims and leftists, just like Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

non-neutral and fringe source
the book by rod stark is described as following: "In God's Battalions, award-winning author Rodney Stark takes on the long-held view that the Crusades were the first round of European colonialism, conducted for land, loot, and converts by barbarian Christians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. Instead, Stark argues that the Crusades were the first military response to Muslim terrorist aggession." 

this is utter nonsense, and represents a fringe view. the additions made by user daisy also violate wp:npov. in addition, there is a restriction-section covering the issue without violating npov or using non-neutral sources.--  altetendekrabbe   17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rodney Stark is academic in the field of religion so his view are notable and not fringe at all--Shrike (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * his views on the crusades are fringe, like his views on evolution.--  altetendekrabbe   17:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the supporters of Stark will adopt his weird theories in other articles, such as his whitewashing (p46 etc) of the Crusaders' behavior towards Jews. That's the price of adopting fringe sources, you know. Zerotalk 05:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't verified that, but that's a good point.VR talk  23:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Rodney Stark's book "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades" seems more like a polemic in defence of the Crusades than an academic study of the subject. What is the case for reliability of the source?VR talk  23:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a tough one. It certainly does read like a polemic, and his views on evolution do suggest that he's fringy. On the other hand he is an academic. I suggest asking at WP:RSN for help. Volunteer Marek 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly polemical to call the Crusades a preemptive strike. I suppose the Crusades northward were also a preemptive strike to keep the Estonians and Latvians from conquering Europe.
 * This sort of agenda driven scholarship ignores that it's only because of Islam and its tradition of rational thought--responsible for translations of ancient Greek texts--that what we value as the roots of Western culture even survived. And what did the Church bring in terms of rational thought? Nothing. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Tolerance
" and "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century"." Excuse me, but what is the basis for this statement? --41.151.124.7 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the source is "Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill, Islam: The Religion and the People, Wharton School Publishing, 2008, pp. 146". You can find it at google books.VR talk  05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be correct regarding tolerance. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Hi

Some of the recent reverts are a result of cherry-picking sources. I do not intend to imply that this has been done purposefully. However, although it is quite easy to find analyses of primary sources that document justifications of harsh discriminatory practises towards the dhimmi, this needs to be contextualised. Two important points stand out in this regard: I can provide some sources if necessary, otherwise I'll try to present some drafts covering this in the not-too-distant future. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Real practices, as oppposed to written sources, need to be considered. The written sources are more often than not most relevant to a current internal political situation. Over the historical record the number of reiterations, as well as the power and wealth accumulated by some dhimmi groups, demonstrate that they were never followed to the letter. In order to present a balanced view, this needs to be reflected.
 * Practises need to be put in a historical context
 * What do you consider to be an accurate representation of the various sources that you removed from the article; I presume that you do not advocate a total removal which would certainly be a strange form of 'contextualization'. ' Ankh '. Morpork  11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about trying to get a general picture of what the main sources on the subject say, and write something that conforms with WP:BALANCE?
 * The lead part needs to be specific. As it was, it appeared to claim that a majority of scholarly authors believe that the dhimmi concept has been practised with the utmost severity by all Muslim communities at all times in all the world. Although there probably are some sources who claim this, they are not WP:RS. Also, it's really poorly worded.
 * The Hodgson part lacks a citation unless it's cited from Stark, in which case the original should be consulted.
 * Stark is clearly WP:FRINGE. I don't believe the article currently is large enough to defend including his views without violating WP:DUE.
 * The rest is nitpicking. Precise and balanced regards, benjamil (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't add unreliable sources. Benjamil is right that Stark is fringe. I can't comment on Nafziger right now ( he appears borderline reliable ). But we can certainly include material on discrimination against dhimmis in a neutral way based on reliable sources only. I have tried to just that.VR talk  15:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On page 227, Nafziger says that "The inhabitants of any town captured...were either killed of lead into slavery."
 * At least in the case of the Muslim conquest of Persia, this is just not true.
 * On page 228, he says that if a Muslim robbed a non-Muslim, "his religion re-affirmed this behaviour". This is just absurd. The property of dhimmis is protected, no less by the saying of prophet Muhammad that "he who harms a dhimmi, harms me." This view also seems Islamophobic.
 * Please do not restore Nafziger to the lead.VR talk  16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The test of reliability is not the extent of conformity with one's own views or the result of OR. You removed several academic works and the one that your explicitly stated was unreliable has been relied upon by the BBC. ' Ankh '. Morpork  17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop reinstating content en bloque. I will be happy to take Nafziger, Stark and the quotation of Hodgson to WP:RS/N, if that can help settle the issue. benjamil (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't he find the original Marshall G. S. Hodgson source? Well, I believe I found it in Google Books here page 448:
 * ""Zealous Shari'ah-minded Muslims elaborated gladly their code of symbolic restrictions on the dhimmî non-Muslims – they must wear certain humiliating garments and signs, they must not build new houses of worship, and so on –" "As the dhimmî communities dwindled, popular Muslim sentiment more and more readily insisted on stigmatizing the minorities.""


 * 	The Venture of Islam: The classical age of Islam ISBN 0226346838
 * That chapter deals with the era of the High Caliphate. So I believe such eras of discrimination should be also covered, but indeed the Stark quote was exaggerating this. PS. The article uses a source AskAMufti.com in the lead to say that dhimmis had the same rights; and after it other text contradicts it. The article should state that dhimmis had full protection from the Islamic state and the same rights inside their own community, but that they could not present evidence against a Muslim in court or inherit for example. page 163 by Clinton Bennett and Majid Khadduri. Any sources like "AskaMufti.com" should be replaced with proper information like that.--Pudeo' 22:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the somewhat questionable sources of AskAMufti.com from the lead and instead replaced it with the notion from Bennett's book that they "had their fights fully protected in their communities, but as subjects to the Muslim state, had certain disabilities." The original source had the wording "suffered certain disablities", but for a more neutral lead I used the word "had". I think it's pretty balanced now. Hopefully the edit-warring will be over now that the Hodgson quote is on from a reliable source, perhaps it satisfies both sides. However, if the dispute continues, you should take Nafziger and Stark to WP:RS/N instead of reverting. --Pudeo' 02:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work. I believe that I've read somewhere in Eugene Rogan's The Arabs that the dhimmi contract was rather leniently enforced in Egypt under the Ottoman empire. I'll try to include something about this when I get back from my vacation. benjamil (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright...
... in regard to this contentious edit(s)


 * 1) I changed "disabilities" back to "restrictions" per just ... good English.
 * 2) I put the sentence "On the other hand, they were excused or excluded from specific duties... " back to where it was because it provides better organization, and it keeps it clear what claim comes from what source.
 * 3) I removed the "humiliating and discriminatory" because it comes to being a close paraphrase copyvio.
 * 4) I removed the stuff about prohibitions on intermarriage and inheritance for two related reasons. First, this is really to much detail for the lede. Second, the situation was a bit more complicated than that - to present the picture accurately you would have to compare these restrictions on intermarriage and inheritance in historical Muslim societies with the same kinds of (often much more severe) restrictions in non-Muslim societies. The two reasons are related because there simply isn't enough room in the lede to do that.
 * 5) I restored the paragraph about Hodgson to its original version because the other version made it seems like Lewis and Hodgson were engaged in some kind of direct polemic with each other. They were not, AFAIK.

Volunteer Marek 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oy, come on guys
This (the reverts between July 11, 7:12 by the IP address and July 11, 12:44) is a pretty blatant case of tag-team edit warring. First some anon IP puts in obviously POV edits. Then Frotz reverts it back in. Then Estlandia reverts it back in. Then reverts again. Then AnkhMorpork reverts it back in. The same people who've been coordinating (perhaps implicitly) their edits against Altetendekrabbe on this and other article. It's blatant. Hell, it doesn't just look like tag-team edit warring but almost like purposeful attempts at baiting a user into a 3RR violation.

Quit it. Volunteer Marek 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ankhmorpork has already filed a bogus case, . very interesting to see how they get away with such blatant attempts of gaming the system.--  altetendekrabbe   18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmi communities
I have placed a POV tag on "Dhimmi communities", and here's why. The section does not document the situation of Dhimmi communities as a reader would expect, but instead reads like a polemical tract dedicated to defending Muslim regimes against charges of discrimination.

One reason I get this impression is because of the constant, in-your-face comparison between the supposedly tolerant Muslim regimes to the supposedly repressive states of Christendom: "Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom... after many centuries of discrimination... Jews saw the Islamic conquests as just another change of rulers, this time for the better ....  Jewish dhimmis living under the Caliphate... were still better off than in the Christian parts of Europe... situation of the Jews in the Muslim world was generally better than in Christendom ... Islam has "shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands."...  in contrast to Jews in Christian Europe, the "Jews in Islam were well integrated...  they were allowed to practice their religion more freely than they could do in Christian Europe." However, rather than continually quote the opinions of people who thought Islam was superior to Christianity or Europe in the tolerance department, it would be a much more neutral approach to state some concrete policy differences, and to let the readers form their own opinions. Or, were there areas in which Jews and "unbelievers" - a non-neutral word for non-Muslims - lived in better conditions than under Muslim rule? Secular Europe is cited as an example, couldn't that comparison be developed further? Even better, simply state the restrictions under which Dhimmis lived, without the selective comparisons.

Also, it would also be advisable to state the affiliations of some of the talking heads. It would be useful to note, for example, that Bernard Lewis is a scholar of the history of Islam rather than a scholar of Jewish history.

There are statements such as "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom", and "Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion". This is both a subjective statement and a prompt for the question: what are the cases in which non-Muslim cases had their freedoms restricted? Why are they not enumerated?

The section on Hindus and Buddhists is not as egregiously biased, but it does give the one-sided impression that Muslims were totally benevolent. This seems strange in light of the fact that the Muslim conquest of India and historical Muslim treatment of Hindus had led to serious resentment by Hindus and communal riots in the 20th century. Likewise with contemporary Jews making claims to historical discrimination by Muslims. These viewpoints do not seem to be represented at all in this section, despite their prominence in current affairs.

For some ideas on sources to redress the balance, a quick search came upon three books by Bat Ye'or: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. These are by no means the only sources which provide the underrepresented viewpoint, but they are a starting point to understand the arguments of non-Muslim-apologists. Shrigley (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bat Ye'or is not reliable for history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That statement about Bat Ye'or is just another POV. If you can't argue against the message you condemn and reject the messenger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure that some Muslim governments discriminate (just like some non-Muslim ones do) I don't see any reason to include the "Discrimination" sidebar in this section (or the article in general). Seems a good bit like POV pushing as well. Volunteer Marek 22:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What in your view would provide sufficient reason to include it? ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong question. Basically, it makes no sense to include a "Discrimination" sidebar in historical articles. Unless you think that we should spam that article into every article concerned with pre ... 21st century Europe. It just simply doesn't belong here, and it's presence is arbitrary, tendentious and pov. Volunteer Marek 00:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AnkhMorpork, this could be included in articles like yellow badge (which, unfortunately originated in Muslim societies), Persecution of Bahá'ís (which happens in Iran) etc. In each of these cases the article is wholly about discrimination against an identifiable group. By contrast, some dhimmis were given "mutual respect and cooperation", while others were subjected to "subservience and persecution and ill treatment" (as Lewis notes), making the concept of dhimmi more complicated than a simple case of discrimination.VR talk  04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The yellow badge did not necessarily originate in Muslim societies. I suspect it was from the Fourth Lateran Council. I did have a look around for sources that would resolve the question, but didn't get very far. I will look again when I have a moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a less definite example of unfair treatment, however the entire concept revolves around discriminatory practices, in a literal sense, which affected the obligations and legal status of non-Muslim citizens and this is not disputed. ' Ankh '. Morpork  11:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many scholarly articles that describe dhimmi status as discrimination--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate. Hypothetically, if the overwhelming view is that dhimmi was discriminatory, would you oppose a discrimination sidebar. ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the use of the discrimination sidebar implies some relevance to modern usage or general principles. This would have to be qualified. The dhimmi concept that is the topic of this article is mainly of a historical nature that seems outside the scope of the sidebar.
 * Regards, benjamil (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And do you have any policies upon which you base this imaginative interpretation ?' Ankh '. Morpork  23:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Do you have any policies that support your interpretation? Although I'm not able to present an analytically impervious answer to the question "What should be the limitations to the use of the discrimination sidebar?" I believe that the answer should pass the test of consequence. Noting the absence of the sidebar on the following sections and pages should be an interesting point of origin for such a discussion: Goy, Heathen, Patron-client relationship and Matriarchy.
 * Imaginative regards, benjamil (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are many scholarly sources that say dhimmis enjoyed equality and tolerance. These two sets of sources are both correct, depending on what place and period of time we are looking at.
 * This is like attaching the discrimination sidebar to the article on African Americans. Yeah, they face discrimination, but many times they are also treated with equality (e.g. President of the United States). On the other hand an articles called "anti-black discrimination", antisemitism would merit the sidebar, and so would an objective article on "anti-Non-Muslim discrimination".VR talk  15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the Quran specifically talks about dhimmis being subdued. It matters not whether the treatment of dhimmis was better than in Christian areas or whether it was fashionable or accepted by society.  It still remains that the dhimmis were discriminated against.  This makes me wonder, what is the problem with the following snippet?


 * Verse : "Fight against the Infidel...until they pay the Jizya and feel themselves subdued." has been used to assert that dhimmis must materially demonstrate their submission to the authority of the Muslim state.


 * Please state clearly and exactly why the above snippet is unacceptable. -- Frotz(talk) 22:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Second class citezenship
I have checked the source "Encyclopedia of Islam" and it states quite clear that "dhimmi status, a kind of second-class citizenship" --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * and what does the lines, following after your quote, state? in addition, the subject of the article you are referring to in e.o.i is not dhimmis. you are again trying to misrepresent a source by cherry picking what you want to add, leaving out the the *historical context*.--  altetendekrabbe   13:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What relevancy it have to second-class citizenship?Moreover this not the only source there are many more for example --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For reference another source --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * er, right. if you are not *able* to comprehend that without context, especially historical context, quotes can be used to mislead the reader, then i suggest you take a break from wiki. it is clear that you are unable to make *balanced* contributions to muslim related articles due to your strong pov.--  altetendekrabbe   : 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point that one can misrepresent a source even if one is "quoting" from it is obviously content-related. And very true.
 * The point that context is important is also content-related.
 * The point that one shouldn't cherry pick quotes from a source is also content-related.
 * The point that an editor should be professional enough to realize the above three points in order to be able to adequately edit what's supposed to be an encyclopedia addresses content related actions of an editor. Volunteer Marek  17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And I just checked the source itself, and yes, altetendekrabbe is exactly right - this is a case of misrepresenting a source by cherry picking a throw away line from what is not even the main article on dhimmis. It's hard to take these kinds of actions in good faith as they seem to be dishonest. I guess extreme editorial incompetence would be the good faith interpretation. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I brought other scholarly sources did you claim this cherry picking too?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked out the source being used in the article to support the text. And yes, that was cherry picked and misrepresented the source. If you've got other sources which you want me to look at be specific.
 * More generally thought, I don't see how including the info about "second class citizenship" is of major importance in the article - remember this is about the historical nature of the concept. Pretty much in almost ALL historical societies, a few aside, the people of non-ruling faith/ethnicity/etc. were second class citizens. What matters from a historical perspective is the relative "secondness" of this status. Volunteer Marek 00:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. The status of minorities relies on the benevolence of the ruling class so will fluctuate from good to bad depending on who is in charge. Did dhimmis have a lower status than other minorities in the same societies?  Actually the opposite was often true since the status provides a formal right to protection and autonomy that other minorities didn't have (though always at the whim of the ruling class to respect or violate the right). Zerotalk 00:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you compare with one minority to other and not to the ruling class anyhow I brought a scholarly sources that describe the status as a second class.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that is the relevant comparison; you compare like with like. Anyway, can you explain why it's important for the article to state this business about "second class citizens"? That's essentially a modern term but this is an article about a historical concept. I would actually be fine, if you insist, with this phrase being used somewhere in the article but it's UNDUE for the lede. Volunteer Marek 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on anything this status is described as second class citezns by scholarly sources so I should be included in the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, can you clarify? Volunteer Marek  16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again here two reliable scholary source that describe a dhimmi status as discrimination ,,--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, in regard to this edit I think it's fine if the whole "second class citizens" thing is mentioned in that particular place in the article, though I would rather see a more reliable source supporting it. ABC-CLIO is a tertiary source (an encyclopedia) and not a very good one at that. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Second class citizens
To me, the cited sources are either clearly WP:FRINGE (Gisele Littman/Bat Ye'Or), or should be discussed for reliability (1950s Lebanese Christian writing on Muslims). Best regards, benjamil (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have longstanding consensus not to use Bat Ye'or. I will try and check out the other one. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Christians don't know about Islam? Wow, what an outrageously ignorant statement.

Check out http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimmitude_(definition) which quotes Antoine Fattal states that dhimmis were second class citizens. Do you deny that they were prohibited from carrying arms? Or do you just delete posts that don't whitewash things to your satifsaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lebanese Christians may be knowledgeable, but for good reasons may be prone to have a strong point of view (see WP:NPOV). The source is also rather obscure, but is being checked out. Please do not imply any motives and discuss content instead. Also, you should consider changing your username, per WP:UN. --benjamil (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That same Lebanese Christian was being quoted on wikiislam.net. And stating that Lebanese Christians might be prone to a strong point of view is implying motives to their statements. If you're gonna quote Wikipedia policy to me then at least abide by it. I have received nothing but chuckles over my username throughout the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no problem in discussing the reliability of sources. Surely you see the difference between implying that someone dishonest to their face (WP:CIVIL) and discussing whether an environment that sparked civil war might have clouded the academic judgment of sources that are 50 years old. I've taken a brief look at wikiislam.net, and from their FAQ it is obvious that they are a source with an inherent POV and a rather conspiratorical mind set, e.g. using select cases to "prove" censorship on Wikipedia. The site might well be mined for sources, but cannot be used as a source in itself. Also, it does not seem to have a secondary source policy, meaning that there is no guarantee that analyses are not subject to quality control by anyone else than the users subscribing to wikiislam's worldview (or even a minority thereof) . Seems like a nice recipe for an echo chamber, and an environment that doesn't really foster a mentality of source criticism. --benjamil (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are summarily dismissing Antoine Fattal as a source because he was referenced on a site which you take issue with. What is your impression of teachislam.com? I invite you to read this:

http://www.teachislam.com/dmdocuments/73-4/The%20Ottomans/Government/The%20Status%20of%20Jews%20and%20Christians%20in%20Muslim%20Lands,%201772%20CE.pdf

which has a response by Sheikh Hasan al Kafrawi, an 18th century Muslim scholar in Cairo, to the question of how Christians and Jews should be treated? So please, tell me what is wrong with using this as a source on how Christians were treated (e.g. can't be allowed to ride horses because horses are noble animals). --Whatdafuq (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not summarily dismissing anyone. I'm just saying that it's not obvious that he's a reliable source. He might be. But it might also be difficult to find out. The book is available at my university library, but not in a meaningful format, as far as I've been able to find, on Google books. Based on my very poor French, he gets an excellent review here, and a rather critical one here. Crucially, the last review (the public part of which I'm actually able to review), points at important aspects that have largely been left out in recent edits on this article: Context, and variations in time and space. The last review also suggests that the information the book was used to source is more nuanced in the original. Then again, the quote at Wikiislam contains elements of intellectual rubbish, unless interpreted without connection to historical reality (e.g. in terms of abstract jurisprudence).

The "rather critical" review is not really so critical. It notes the impressive work of Fattal in his research on both the historical and legal aspects of the subject. The criticism, as it is, is that the reviewer felt there was a gap that needed filling between the two. So, I believe we can agree that Fattal is not some crazy Phalangist with an axe to grind and that your comment on his reliability is completely wrong. While Fattal did/does not get universal acclaim he did scholarly work and the body of it is impressive and valuable. So what is your excuse you will now use for removing quotes from Fattal on the dhimmi page?--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis."


 * The counterexamples to this are legion. As for the other stuff, I'll have to look into that another time.


 * --benjamil (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I missed that quote but these sort of statements are made all the time-- "Americans are ignorant of geography", "Russia is corrupt", etc. The counterexamples to those statements are legion but statements are frequently made with this sort of absolutist wording. The Koran instructs believers to not take Jews and Christians as friends so there is some truth to a statement like that. Granted not all believers follow that just like not all Americans are ignorant of geography (or are obese for that matter) yet one cannot object to these statements whenever and wherever they are made simply because a counterexample exists.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These sort of statements are also commonly indicative of a polemic as opposed to disinterested mind set. As for the degree of criticism in the review: Yes, for an academic review, this is quite harsh criticism. It says "But while the way in which the author deals individually with both the legal and historical sources is eminently satisfactory, the all-important question of the relationship between the two is left largely unanswered." (my emphasis) This however, is not very important, seeing that Itsmejudith has interceded with knowledge superior to mine. My issue was simply that I didn't accept this rather inaccessible source, mined from an inherently-pov site as reliable without checking it out. It would probably save you some heartbeats if you got used to such minor scepticism. benjamil  talk/edits 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This academic study is a much better source for Lebanon. Zerotalk 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That book "tells the story of Jews of Lebanon in the twentieth century." Which is not really the time that Antoine Fattal was talking about. And "a much better source"... why? Fattal's book is, according to wikiislam, "the benchmark analysis of non-Muslims (especially Christians and Jews) living under Sharia." Another of his books "is a seminal work" on the legal status of non-Muslims living under Sharia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, atleast Majid Khadduri describes dhimmi as a "second-class citizen status" too. (War and peace in the law of Islam, page 198). --Pudeo' 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct Quotes
There is nothing interpretive in a quote of the Koran on the Jizya. In fact, the section below "Qur'anic verses as a basis for Islamic policies toward dhimmis" mentions the Jizya! It just does so in reference to Hadiths. So it is established on the dhimmi page that the Jizya is an appropriate topic. Therefore a Koranic quote regarding the Jizya should be under the "Qur'anic verses" section.

To quote, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." So raising a WP:OR objection is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The relationship between what is written in a holy book and what is done by the believers of the book is a very complex one. Your edit suggests a direct relationship but you didn't provide any source for that.  It is a classic case of Original Research, exactly what the rules forbid. Zerotalk 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bat Ye'or line of argumentation. Essentialist. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your tactic of saying "Bat Ye'or line of argumentation" is merely an ad hominem. Care to bring facts to the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody care to explain why my edits keep getting reverted? I acknowledged that my edit suggested a relationship that was not documented but now I have documented it. All of the other verses in the Koranic verses section relate to tolerance. It should be noted that tolerance of "the other" would be to not treat him differently, that is, not apply a state of dhimmitude to him. In the interest of balance it should be noted that there are some who believe that there is a Koranic justification for asserting that dhimmis are subjugated. In fact, it says "pay the Jizya and feel themselves subdued." Subdued is not tolerance.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the paragraph that you're pulling this quote out of, is in fact about clarifying the fact that dhimmi status applies to non-Muslims living in Muslim ruled societies, rather than non-Muslims living in non-Muslim societies, and not about Jizya or tolerance or whatever. You're cherry picking quotes (again?). Volunteer Marek 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no. I'm not cherry picking but you are engaging in a straw man argument (again?). That is where one misrepresents a position for the purpose of creating the impression that you have refuted it. I never said anything about it applying to "non-Muslims in non-Muslim societies". The paragraph specifically mentions the jizya and the paying the jizya ("in submission") was a hallmark of being a dhimmi. So it is quite relevant. You're willfully misrepresenting things (again?).--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Antoine Fattal's Le statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d'Islam, a general survey, retains its value as an entry point into the study of this subject. It has been supplemented and often surpassed by a variety of more focussed studies, of which Yohanan Friedmann's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam deserves particular mention. A number of works, including Fattals' and especially Mark Cohen's Under crescent and cross, devote considerable attention to comparing medieval Islamic laws governing non-Muslims with their counterparts in Roman, Sasanid and Christian sources. Placed in this context rather than viewed against the backdrop of twenty-first century Western norms, the laws expressed in medieval Islamic sources appear commonplace and even relatively benign; non-Muslims subject to these laws, of course, surely did not see them as such." David M. Freidenreich, "Christians in early and Classical Sunni law", in David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Brill. 2009.
 * Therefore, we should generally treat as superseded. We are currently underusing Mark Cohen. The last sentence I have taken from Freidenreich is an excellent summary of the current academic consensus, and we ought to make sure we reflect it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No we should not treat it as superseded. See the reviews for his work above. You even quote that Fattal "devote[s] considerable attention to comparing medieval Islamic laws governing non-Muslims with their counterparts in Roman, Sasanid and Christian sources." which seems quite important to you for some strange reason. It's fascinating that you will quote something that says "non-Musims subject to these [dhimmi] laws, of course, surely did not see them as [relatively benign]." Really? Why would that be? The dhimmi page is all about how wonderfully tolerant the whole experience was. The non-muslim's rights were ensured! He didn't have to serve in the army! What a glorious experience it must've been...oh wait, you're now admitting that people subject to this tolerance and respect were not happy with it? Wow. When one reads the dhimmi page and then the end of this quote of yours there's an obvious disconnect. And furthermore, the page is about what it meant to be a dhimmi. It is not a page on comparing and contrasting medieval laws in Christian lands and Muslim lands or trying to place behavior that might be viewed as hostile in a 21st century backdrop in context. This kind of moral equivalence has no place in the dhimmi page. --Whatdafuq (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * exactly. compared to western democracies the dhimmi-status was indeed brutal and unacceptable. however, compared to other medieval (christian) regimes it was a step forwards. as noted by bernard lewis: "muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century". as a start, why don't you quote freidenreich in the text? --  altetendekrabbe   16:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But why should the coercion means of either religion be defended against each other? I believe the main intention of the article is not to battle which is worse, Christianity/Judaism vs. Islam. Atleast for me as an atheist there is nothing holy in any of those religions, so I have no problem with having the negative sides in the article too. Rather a problematic situation if religious people defend people their religion here based on what is holy instead of rationality. --Pudeo' 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of comparing religions but of placing facts in historical context. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. What the Christians were doing to Jews in Europe is not the subject of the page. It's what dhimmitude was all about. It doesn't matter how dhimmitude "compared to other medieval (Christian) regimes". The only purpose of the sort of moral relativism that you wish to engage in is to justify the unjustifiable. "But the Christians did it too!" is not an excuse and it's not the topic at hand.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that the text should be specific about when, where, how, and possibly also why the dhimmi regulations have been practised as they have. In some cases, for example relating to the exodus of sephardic Jews from Spain, discussion of other regimes is definitely in order. Not because it makes the history less grim, but because it helps in understanding the phenomenon and its dynamics. I guess that's the essential word: dynamics. In space and time. benjamil  talk/edits 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Second class citizens
To me, the cited sources are either clearly WP:FRINGE (Gisele Littman/Bat Ye'Or), or should be discussed for reliability (1950s Lebanese Christian writing on Muslims). Best regards, benjamil (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have longstanding consensus not to use Bat Ye'or. I will try and check out the other one. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Christians don't know about Islam? Wow, what an outrageously ignorant statement.

Check out http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimmitude_(definition) which quotes Antoine Fattal states that dhimmis were second class citizens. Do you deny that they were prohibited from carrying arms? Or do you just delete posts that don't whitewash things to your satifsaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lebanese Christians may be knowledgeable, but for good reasons may be prone to have a strong point of view (see WP:NPOV). The source is also rather obscure, but is being checked out. Please do not imply any motives and discuss content instead. Also, you should consider changing your username, per WP:UN. --benjamil (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That same Lebanese Christian was being quoted on wikiislam.net. And stating that Lebanese Christians might be prone to a strong point of view is implying motives to their statements. If you're gonna quote Wikipedia policy to me then at least abide by it. I have received nothing but chuckles over my username throughout the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no problem in discussing the reliability of sources. Surely you see the difference between implying that someone dishonest to their face (WP:CIVIL) and discussing whether an environment that sparked civil war might have clouded the academic judgment of sources that are 50 years old. I've taken a brief look at wikiislam.net, and from their FAQ it is obvious that they are a source with an inherent POV and a rather conspiratorical mind set, e.g. using select cases to "prove" censorship on Wikipedia. The site might well be mined for sources, but cannot be used as a source in itself. Also, it does not seem to have a secondary source policy, meaning that there is no guarantee that analyses are not subject to quality control by anyone else than the users subscribing to wikiislam's worldview (or even a minority thereof) . Seems like a nice recipe for an echo chamber, and an environment that doesn't really foster a mentality of source criticism. --benjamil (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are summarily dismissing Antoine Fattal as a source because he was referenced on a site which you take issue with. What is your impression of teachislam.com? I invite you to read this:

http://www.teachislam.com/dmdocuments/73-4/The%20Ottomans/Government/The%20Status%20of%20Jews%20and%20Christians%20in%20Muslim%20Lands,%201772%20CE.pdf

which has a response by Sheikh Hasan al Kafrawi, an 18th century Muslim scholar in Cairo, to the question of how Christians and Jews should be treated? So please, tell me what is wrong with using this as a source on how Christians were treated (e.g. can't be allowed to ride horses because horses are noble animals). --Whatdafuq (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not summarily dismissing anyone. I'm just saying that it's not obvious that he's a reliable source. He might be. But it might also be difficult to find out. The book is available at my university library, but not in a meaningful format, as far as I've been able to find, on Google books. Based on my very poor French, he gets an excellent review here, and a rather critical one here. Crucially, the last review (the public part of which I'm actually able to review), points at important aspects that have largely been left out in recent edits on this article: Context, and variations in time and space. The last review also suggests that the information the book was used to source is more nuanced in the original. Then again, the quote at Wikiislam contains elements of intellectual rubbish, unless interpreted without connection to historical reality (e.g. in terms of abstract jurisprudence).

The "rather critical" review is not really so critical. It notes the impressive work of Fattal in his research on both the historical and legal aspects of the subject. The criticism, as it is, is that the reviewer felt there was a gap that needed filling between the two. So, I believe we can agree that Fattal is not some crazy Phalangist with an axe to grind and that your comment on his reliability is completely wrong. While Fattal did/does not get universal acclaim he did scholarly work and the body of it is impressive and valuable. So what is your excuse you will now use for removing quotes from Fattal on the dhimmi page?--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis."


 * The counterexamples to this are legion. As for the other stuff, I'll have to look into that another time.


 * --benjamil (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I missed that quote but these sort of statements are made all the time-- "Americans are ignorant of geography", "Russia is corrupt", etc. The counterexamples to those statements are legion but statements are frequently made with this sort of absolutist wording. The Koran instructs believers to not take Jews and Christians as friends so there is some truth to a statement like that. Granted not all believers follow that just like not all Americans are ignorant of geography (or are obese for that matter) yet one cannot object to these statements whenever and wherever they are made simply because a counterexample exists.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These sort of statements are also commonly indicative of a polemic as opposed to disinterested mind set. As for the degree of criticism in the review: Yes, for an academic review, this is quite harsh criticism. It says "But while the way in which the author deals individually with both the legal and historical sources is eminently satisfactory, the all-important question of the relationship between the two is left largely unanswered." (my emphasis) This however, is not very important, seeing that Itsmejudith has interceded with knowledge superior to mine. My issue was simply that I didn't accept this rather inaccessible source, mined from an inherently-pov site as reliable without checking it out. It would probably save you some heartbeats if you got used to such minor scepticism. benjamil  talk/edits 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This academic study is a much better source for Lebanon. Zerotalk 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That book "tells the story of Jews of Lebanon in the twentieth century." Which is not really the time that Antoine Fattal was talking about. And "a much better source"... why? Fattal's book is, according to wikiislam, "the benchmark analysis of non-Muslims (especially Christians and Jews) living under Sharia." Another of his books "is a seminal work" on the legal status of non-Muslims living under Sharia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, atleast Majid Khadduri describes dhimmi as a "second-class citizen status" too. (War and peace in the law of Islam, page 198). --Pudeo' 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct Quotes
There is nothing interpretive in a quote of the Koran on the Jizya. In fact, the section below "Qur'anic verses as a basis for Islamic policies toward dhimmis" mentions the Jizya! It just does so in reference to Hadiths. So it is established on the dhimmi page that the Jizya is an appropriate topic. Therefore a Koranic quote regarding the Jizya should be under the "Qur'anic verses" section.

To quote, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." So raising a WP:OR objection is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The relationship between what is written in a holy book and what is done by the believers of the book is a very complex one. Your edit suggests a direct relationship but you didn't provide any source for that.  It is a classic case of Original Research, exactly what the rules forbid. Zerotalk 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bat Ye'or line of argumentation. Essentialist. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your tactic of saying "Bat Ye'or line of argumentation" is merely an ad hominem. Care to bring facts to the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody care to explain why my edits keep getting reverted? I acknowledged that my edit suggested a relationship that was not documented but now I have documented it. All of the other verses in the Koranic verses section relate to tolerance. It should be noted that tolerance of "the other" would be to not treat him differently, that is, not apply a state of dhimmitude to him. In the interest of balance it should be noted that there are some who believe that there is a Koranic justification for asserting that dhimmis are subjugated. In fact, it says "pay the Jizya and feel themselves subdued." Subdued is not tolerance.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the paragraph that you're pulling this quote out of, is in fact about clarifying the fact that dhimmi status applies to non-Muslims living in Muslim ruled societies, rather than non-Muslims living in non-Muslim societies, and not about Jizya or tolerance or whatever. You're cherry picking quotes (again?). Volunteer Marek 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no. I'm not cherry picking but you are engaging in a straw man argument (again?). That is where one misrepresents a position for the purpose of creating the impression that you have refuted it. I never said anything about it applying to "non-Muslims in non-Muslim societies". The paragraph specifically mentions the jizya and the paying the jizya ("in submission") was a hallmark of being a dhimmi. So it is quite relevant. You're willfully misrepresenting things (again?).--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Antoine Fattal's Le statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d'Islam, a general survey, retains its value as an entry point into the study of this subject. It has been supplemented and often surpassed by a variety of more focussed studies, of which Yohanan Friedmann's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam deserves particular mention. A number of works, including Fattals' and especially Mark Cohen's Under crescent and cross, devote considerable attention to comparing medieval Islamic laws governing non-Muslims with their counterparts in Roman, Sasanid and Christian sources. Placed in this context rather than viewed against the backdrop of twenty-first century Western norms, the laws expressed in medieval Islamic sources appear commonplace and even relatively benign; non-Muslims subject to these laws, of course, surely did not see them as such." David M. Freidenreich, "Christians in early and Classical Sunni law", in David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Brill. 2009.
 * Therefore, we should generally treat as superseded. We are currently underusing Mark Cohen. The last sentence I have taken from Freidenreich is an excellent summary of the current academic consensus, and we ought to make sure we reflect it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No we should not treat it as superseded. See the reviews for his work above. You even quote that Fattal "devote[s] considerable attention to comparing medieval Islamic laws governing non-Muslims with their counterparts in Roman, Sasanid and Christian sources." which seems quite important to you for some strange reason. It's fascinating that you will quote something that says "non-Musims subject to these [dhimmi] laws, of course, surely did not see them as [relatively benign]." Really? Why would that be? The dhimmi page is all about how wonderfully tolerant the whole experience was. The non-muslim's rights were ensured! He didn't have to serve in the army! What a glorious experience it must've been...oh wait, you're now admitting that people subject to this tolerance and respect were not happy with it? Wow. When one reads the dhimmi page and then the end of this quote of yours there's an obvious disconnect. And furthermore, the page is about what it meant to be a dhimmi. It is not a page on comparing and contrasting medieval laws in Christian lands and Muslim lands or trying to place behavior that might be viewed as hostile in a 21st century backdrop in context. This kind of moral equivalence has no place in the dhimmi page. --Whatdafuq (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * exactly. compared to western democracies the dhimmi-status was indeed brutal and unacceptable. however, compared to other medieval (christian) regimes it was a step forwards. as noted by bernard lewis: "muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century". as a start, why don't you quote freidenreich in the text? --  altetendekrabbe   16:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But why should the coercion means of either religion be defended against each other? I believe the main intention of the article is not to battle which is worse, Christianity/Judaism vs. Islam. Atleast for me as an atheist there is nothing holy in any of those religions, so I have no problem with having the negative sides in the article too. Rather a problematic situation if religious people defend people their religion here based on what is holy instead of rationality. --Pudeo' 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of comparing religions but of placing facts in historical context. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. What the Christians were doing to Jews in Europe is not the subject of the page. It's what dhimmitude was all about. It doesn't matter how dhimmitude "compared to other medieval (Christian) regimes". The only purpose of the sort of moral relativism that you wish to engage in is to justify the unjustifiable. "But the Christians did it too!" is not an excuse and it's not the topic at hand.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that the text should be specific about when, where, how, and possibly also why the dhimmi regulations have been practised as they have. In some cases, for example relating to the exodus of sephardic Jews from Spain, discussion of other regimes is definitely in order. Not because it makes the history less grim, but because it helps in understanding the phenomenon and its dynamics. I guess that's the essential word: dynamics. In space and time. benjamil  talk/edits 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International law
This source is parsed in the lead as "and would face restrictions in personal law". This does not accurately reflect the sources which describes "the humiliating and discrimantory implications" that had "obvious psychological and social consequences". ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree source misrepresentation should be fixed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * see the discussion about the historical context above.--  altetendekrabbe   12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which thread discusses this source and the issue of the source misrepresentation? Please explain why you reverted my edit which accurately reflected the source? ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * the burden is on you, not me. you have made the same edit before and it was rejected by other users. now, you reverted, blatantly gaming my 1-rr restriction. i'll report you now.--  altetendekrabbe   12:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you pointed out to me a previous dicussion in which I could participate in, or explained to me why you object to my edit, as I do not understand what is bothering you or how to go about rectifying it. ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this an appropriate source for the article anyway? It's really an essay advocating reform in Islam. The author isn't a medieval historian. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He specialises in human rights in Islam. Isn't Dhimmi right up his alley? ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The book printed in University Press the best WP:RS that could be found--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this one. I see he is an expert in Islamic law. I'll take it to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RSN thread opened now, with a number of questions. While we wait for uninvolved editors to comment there, I think it should be obvious that the "disabilities" wording is supported by the text, but only in relation to certain specific legal areas. If that quite neutral wording is dubious, then the stronger wording even more so. I shall take it out completely until this is resolved. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC).


 * this is the disputed edit, . exactly the same edit was reverted weeks ago. ankh has no consensus, and the burden is on him.--  altetendekrabbe   15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had to go trawling through the page history to see that the reference was initially put in by User:Pudeo, as a compromise and to replace a definitely inferior reference. Well, given the current editing climate, consensus is still elusive. Let's see what is said by RSN regulars. I have also seen that this whole battle goes back to May when a user with precisely 13 edits put in a large chunk of material sourced to Rodney Stark, and Ankh-Morpork accused you of vandalism in an edit summary reverting your revert. An apology is surely due for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And soon after, I explained that this was accidental and explained my objection. Your comments are unfounded. ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the most gracious of apologies, is it? But I do apologise to you for missing your explanation. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though comments such as these 123 may have affected my graciousness.' Ankh '. Morpork  16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the most funny thing is: he continued to edit war after his apology...--  altetendekrabbe   16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall restore this confirmed reliable source with attribution as suggested. ' Ankh '. Morpork  10:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It has not been 'confirmed' that the source is reliable for the statement it was originally cited for - please indicate what your proposed edit is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to An-Na'im, Dhimmis were discriminated against in penal law with humiliating effect that had "psychological and social consequences". In the administration of criminal law, they were not accorded total parity with Muslim men, and they were similarly discriminated against in personal law.' Ankh '. Morpork  18:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is not contained in this source and what modifications do you suggest? ' Ankh '. Morpork  19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - misread it. Let me look again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...And once again, you are misrepresenting the source. The paragraph is discussing a particular aspect of Shari'a law - that relating to fornication, and makes clear that the discrimination it describes was "at the discretion of the authorities". It also points out that Muslim women were similarly sometimes discriminated against, and on that basis, it is misleading to imply that An-Na`im is writing about discrimination against dhimmi's alone. The source cannot be use in the way you are proposing to make general and categorical statements about Islamic law. It simply doesn't assert what you are citing it for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is discussing a particular aspect of Shari'a law - that relating to fornication


 * 1) The paragraph states, "Shari'a penal law discriminates among citizens according to gender and religion". Why is this not a general statement?
 * 2) The paragraph states, "The reputation of a dhimmi is not valued the same way as the reputation of a Muslim". Why is this not a general statement?
 * 3) Since you declare the paragraph is discussing a specific aspect, what is this aspect being cited as an example of?
 * 4) The paragraph refers to  "discriminatory implications of the distinction". What is this "distinction" and is it being cited as an example of a wider concept as is seemingly indicated by "Thus...".

It also points out that Muslim women were similarly sometimes discriminated against, and on that basis, it is misleading to imply that An-Na`im is writing about discrimination against dhimmi's alone.


 * 1) Why does mentioning one group preclude the discrimination against others?
 * 2) Would you state the same if they were in seperate sentences, different chapters or even different books, as the underlying principle of 'An-Na`im did not write about discrimination alone' would similarly apply. ' Ankh '. Morpork  20:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in debating your endless circular arguments. The source given does not support the statement you are citing it for. You are cherry-picking. If the general statement is unequivocally true, find a source that says so, without referring to "discretion of the authorities", or to "differences of opinion among the various jurists and schools of jurisprudence over the precise scope of these and other discriminatory principles and rules of Shari'a" - except of course that this source can then be cited for just that - an assertion that discrimination against dhimmis (and women) under Shari'a was not universally applied. Then again, the source could also be cited for the way Shari'a discriminates against Muslims (or against people it recognises as Muslims) - most specifically in relation to apostasy (see p. 86 and on). You are selectively reading text about a general subject (discrimination under Shari'a law) to 'prove' that dhimmi's were a specific target of discrimination. Then again, the book isn't even about discrimination - the next chapter is entitled "Criminal justice", and right at the start (P.101 2nd paragraph, in a section entitled "criminal justice in the modern nation state") says that "The state seeks to maintain law and order and preserve security through the power to impose criminal punishments affecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual. The imposition of criminal punishment involves not only the possible loss of life, liberty and property for the individual but also severe social stigma and psychological pain and suffering..." And note this isn't Shari'a law that is being referred to, but the modern nation-state. On this basis, to suggest that the fact that discrimination against dhimmis may have caused "psychological and social consequences" would be seen by the author as something unique in law is somewhat questionable, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked you several specific questions regarding the source and you have declined to address them. Instead you present the familiar rambling bombast that when its cloak of indignant emotion is deftly removed, reveals a squirming vacuity squiggling for cover beneath fresh invective, frantically evading the penetrative glare of substance and dispassion. So cease frantically interweaving the fabric and demagoguery of yet another yarn and its polemical embroidery; it is time to forgo the evanescent gossamer of motive and speculation,   for I behold a shivering source that has been awaiting veracious vestiary and sartorial syllogism for far too long. I exhort you: let us together use this thread to fashion a pom-pom hat of probity to gently fit upon the unwieldy head and frigid ears of this stubborn source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The source given does not support the statement you are citing it for. Now go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Following the RSN, I have re-added the source that was originally in the article but was recently removed. I have tried to capture its contents, please effect improvements as opposed to engaging in total removal. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Current Dhimmi situations
I would suggest that dhimmi is alive and well and enjoying something of a resurgence today. Instead of messy edit warring, I would suggest that if a number of islamic states or organizations either directly refer to establishing a dhimma contract or much more likely refer to paying the tax required by this contract, the jizya then the populations that pay are modern dhimmi and should be listed. After a suitable number of examples are gathered, perhaps in a sandbox, the section would be elevated to the actual article. I'm looking for commentary as to how many communities need to have paid and how many organizations need to be seeking to get communities to pay the jizya in order for a legitimate modern dhimmi section to be justified? Let us leave aside whether such communities exist, I'm just looking to avoid the tiresome discussions about who or what is fringe and the edit war pattern by laying out the ground rules in advance. Any takers? TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That would constitute original research. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. If you want to do this, you will have to do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here looking for this. I think it would be a valuable contribution to the article. This might be a good place to start, there are references at the end. Lansey (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Source needs better identification
Reference [1] is "Juan Eduardo Campo, ed. (2010-05-12). "dhimmi". Encyclopedia of Islam", with a quotation. No such text occurs in the second or third editions of Encyclopedia of Islam published online by Brill. What Encyclopedia is it? We need the publisher, the edition, and the author of the entry if specified. Zerotalk 11:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Article needs updating. New name of Dhimmi seems to be called Zimmi officially in Pakistan
From this article: "The word 'Zimmi' had been used instead of minorities as it refers to non-Muslims of an Islamic state."

I am not an expert on proper etiquette on how to go about doing this so I will leave it to you guys. This new word has the same meaning and is a similar sounding word. Does it belong under Dhimmi? or should it be referenced? Thanks

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-05-25/pakistan/39520841_1_pakistan-sikh-minorities-ramesh-singh

http://tribune.com.pk/story/552534/minorities-rights-zimmi-welfare-committee-formed-in-sindh/

http://pakistannewstoday.4com.co/minorities-rights-zimmi-welfare-committee-formed-in-sindh/

--OxAO (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Patrick
I just made an edit to the article, adding the word jizya in the Lead. Glenn Patrick has mentioned the word here:, so please don't revert my edit. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dhimmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130404031520/http://library.tebyan.net/books1/1016.htm to http://library.tebyan.net/books1/1016.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dhimmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061118113944/http://library.tebyan.net:80/books1/1016.htm to http://library.tebyan.net/books1/1016.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

al-Qaradawi's opinion
As the heading suggests, this section is just for mentioning the opinion of contemporary scholars. I feel that additionally mentioning the number of people who watch Yusuf al-Qaradawi's TV show is giving undue weight to his opinion and making it seem like his opinion is more noteworthy or valid than that of other scholars. I do not see any useful purpose or relevance in doing so. If you're trying to show that al-Qaradawi is a prominent scholar then I think your edit that mentioned how he is chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars was enough. I have previously had to remove WP:PEACOCK terms that you had mentioned while describing al-Qaradawi's view. I feel that by now mentioning his TV show's viewership and then re-mentioning it, the situation is starting to seem like advocacy or promotion of a personal religious POV.

User:Jeppiz, User talk:Trinacrialucente, User:Tivanir2 and User:DeCausa, I would appreciate your input on this. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First, per WP:CANVASS you have improperly solicited opinions of other editors. I'm not sure what's normally done in these cases, but they may want to recuse themselves from this discussion. In general, as elsewhere on WP, this section is not a quote farm of random opinions. Its goal is to summarize the prevailing views among the main current of thoughts and segments of population. Ideally, we would rely on reliable secondary sources to make those generalizations. Failing that, we should at least limit ourselves to influential views and give information that would let the reader gauge the influence that each perspective has among scholars and lay persons and among different currents of thought. So, rather than removing this information for al-Qaradawi, we should add similar information for others. I agree that peacock terms is not a good way to do it. We should either use facts or quotations from RSs for that purpose. Eperoton (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Care to explain how I have improperly solicited opinions? And is there any proof that al-Qaradawi's view on the status of dhimmis is one of the prevailing views? If I were to go along with your proposal to add similar information for other scholars, how do you plan on ensuring that everyone gets their due weight? How will we show how influential, say L. Ali Khan is? —Human10.0 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:CANVASS for appropriate ways of soliciting broader participation. The editors you notified took broadly similar positions in a recent RFC on a different subject at Muhammad that we both participated in, all of them arguing against positions I took, like yourself. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS. On the substance, we should do our best to convey how influential the cited views are and which currents of thought they reflect, based on RSs. It's not easy, and using generalizations from secondary sources would be better, if we can find them. But without that, the section would be nothing but a WP:QUOTEFARM. Eperoton (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No offense Eperoton but some positions you and some Muslim editors took were not neutral and did not give due weight in our opinion so we (among others) expressed that. The WP:CANVASS policy seems subjective in this regard. The users I pinged have been involved in Islam-related discussions and help in maintaining a NPOV in articles so they seemed like they could help here as well. Thanks for giving me an idea of what you're trying to do but I am doubtful that we would be able to ensure due weight this way. —Human10.0 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Some details of WP:CANVASS are open to interpretation, but not the underlying rationale, which is not to solicit opinions in a way likely to favor one side of the argument. Picking editors who have a history of agreeing with you or disagreeing with the other party in the debate falls under that category. Even when it's not the case, cherry-picking editors unilaterally is liable to give that impression. Postings to central locations like noticeboards are a non-controversial way to increase participation. If you'd like to nominate specific editors to contact, we should reach a consensus on the nominations before pinging them, though in this case we seem to be moving toward dispute resolution without outside help. Eperoton (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts and accusations
I do not understand why I need to get consensus on the talk page before adding the view of Abul Ala Maududi in the section about contemporary scholars' views on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic state. WP:BOLD permits making edits to pages without asking someone's permission. I cannot at all imagine how you think mentioning his opinion is "undue" when I simply mentioned Maududi's views on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic state in its relevant section. I also wonder why you did not demand consensus when a user added Yusuf al-Qaradawi's view to the same section recently. I feel this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because Maududi's view does not go well with the POV you're trying to push on this page.

When I read this article, its lede was using a blogpost about one man's unverified view as a citation and portraying that view as the view of many Hanafi scholars. Blogs are nor reliable sources on Wikipedia, especially not for a challengable claim like the one that was made. As per MOS:LEAD, statements in the lede must conform to verifiability and the "verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged [...] should be supported by an inline citation." Needless to say, the inline citation needs to be reliable. Statements in the lede are also supposed to be discussed in detail in the body of the article. No discussion nor supporting citations were present in the body of the article. So I deleted the unreliable information. However, you re-added it without any citation. Why should that statement be in the lede when there is no evidence that it is true? (see Notability fallacies) When I deleted the unsourced statement again from the lede, you reverted my edit, accused me of edit-warring and told me to search for a source. Why should I do that? I am not the one who added the material. I would much prefer if you first find a source to support that statement and only then add it to the lede (with citation) and discuss it in some detail in the body of the article, instead of being disruptive.

Since you have followed me to another talk page and confronted me there (7 minutes after you reverted my edits), I would like you to know that that constitutes wikihounding and if you do not cease I will be compelled to report you. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... it seems you have mistaken me with the user who is the one who reverted your addition of the Maududi passage. I'm waiting for an apology here.
 * I didn't state in the lede that many Hanafi scholars are of the opinion of X, rather "some modern Hanafi scholars ...etc"; and re-added it since there may be another source better than the blog link, and unexplained deletion of material isn't tolerated in wiki;
 * I already made some edits in the taqiya and I didn't reply in the talk page to distress you, it was only one small reply, so my behavior isn't wikihounding.
 * 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Per WP:UGC blog posts and other "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't know if that's the case here, and traditional Islamic scholarship is generally a grey area as far as WP policy goes. I don't think deleting the reference and the sentence in one fell swoop is constructive, however, I also don't think we should or need to have this questionable sentence in the lead. I suggest tagging it with "better citation needed" and moving it in a less prominent place. I have no objection to adding Maududi's opinion on the subject. He's an influential figure and we don't yet have a quote representing that current of thought. Eperoton (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I did mistake you for . I wholeheartedly apologise for that. Regarding the sentence in the lede, I know the statement said "some" but it was using the unverified view of one scholar and portraying it as the view of more than one (i.e., "many") Hanafi scholars. We cannot add unsourced material even if we think a source may be found for it in the future. I did not make an unexplained deletion, I gave the explanation for the deletion in the edit summary. I would prefer that instead of re-adding the questionable statement with a 'citation needed' tag, you first find a citation and then add it to the article. Regarding wikihounding, you confronted me on the taqiyya talk page exactly 7 minutes after you confronted me on this article's page and the link to the taqiyya talk page is on my contributions page. You have to admit that is quite suspicious.
 * I'm aware of the wiki policy regarding blogs but that concession couldn't be granted in this case. I feel the questionable statement should only be added to the article after a reliable source is found for it. It is unsourced, I don't know why we are insisting on keeping it. Thank you for being okay with adding Maududi's opinion. —Human10.0 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. I reverted you because adding paragraphs of one scholar's views is unreasonable. We should be writing encyclopedic summaries, not pasting in text wholesale from someone else. Please note that this reversion has nothing to do with point of view. I agree with you that it makes no sense to keep a statement with a "citation needed" tag; better sourcing is required. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but I added just one paragraph about a scholar's view in a section devoted to the views of individual scholars. I do not understand how that was unreasonable. And I wasn't pasting in text, I summarised the important points of Maududi's view and added his full quote from the source in the citation to make verifiability easier. Perhaps the full quote in the citation gave the appearance that I was pasting in a large amount of text. —Human10.0 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It did. I don't think the citation requires the full quote if the point isn't being argued. Honestly, I don't prefer the text's current approach by addressing the views of individual scholars. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We were just discussing this in the section above this one. I don't think anyone prefers this approach, but we don't yet have secondary sources to make generalizations about the range of views on this topic. Eperoton (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel the full quote should be added so that Maududi's view can be easily verified and so that it isn't unnecessarily contested in the future. I don't think there's any harm in including it. Regarding the scholarly views section, I appreciate the opportunity to read a host of Islamic scholars' opinions on the status of dhimmis but I feel the section should be organised in some way (by nationality, sect, school of jurisprudence, date of birth???); it is too jumbled up at the moment. Eperoton suggested adding info on how influential each scholar is but I see no uniform way of determining influence. Could you share why you don't prefer the text's current approach? —Human10.0 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and by influence I don't mean some sort of uniform influence scale, but trying to contextualize that influence. For al-Qaradawy, I tried to convey that he is widely respected among Islamic scholars and also has a very large popular following as a commentator. I didn't mention his connection to Muslim Brotherhood because its nature seems to be disputed, and he is difficult to place in the conservative-liberal spectrum because his views on different subjects fall at various points of it. For Maududi, we could cite his influence on the "Sharization" in Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haqq and his general influence on "radicalist" movements, as discussed in the article about him. We could also mention madhhab, but I doubt this would be very helpful. Politics seems to play a far larger role in the differences between theologians of the last century than their madhhab affiliation. Eperoton (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes in lead
Edit warring by the IP user aside, there have been a couple of recent problematic changes to the last paragraph of the lead. I don't like the term "moderate Muslim" either, but that's the conceptual framework used by Abou El Fadl, who makes generalizations about "moderate Muslims" on one hand and "extremists" on the other. To make a statement about Muslims in general, we would need a different source. Also, the CN tag at the end is not required per WP:LEAD. The sentence summarizes contents of a sourced section. Eperoton (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But even with Muslims it' still correct, since the statement is phrased as: "... Muslims generally reject ..." 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * The statement may be correct, but it's not justified by the source we have any more than a source which says "the overwhelming majority of Sunnis..." could be rendered as "Muslims generally..." Eperoton (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, then we would need to get to the original wording until we come upon another reference. 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

On the inclusion of Tabataba'i in the section 'Views of modern Islamic scholars on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic society'
I think the quoted passage from Tabataba'i is completely WP:UNDUE, it's just taken from a piece of exegesis he offered and has no relation to his actual views on the status of dhimmis in an Islamic polity. The text also makes heavy WP:SYNTHESIS and distorts his view. Should it be thus deleted? What do you think? 12:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Tabataba'i seems to have been a prominent scholar, but it does seem to be WP:UNDUE that we have three traditional Shi'a opinions next to two opinions from traditional Sunni scholars and two opinions from authors with university careers. At least, the other two are maraji' (and more). I agree that WP:SYNTHESIS is a concern. The goal of this passage of his to clarify a statement from Ja'far al-Sadiq. The connection to politics in the modern age is not in the source. Aside from that, what does it actually mean that the verse "is not in conflict with the verse of fighting"? It's not the only problem with this section. In fact, the presentation of Shirazi's view raises the same concern about synthesis (I can't confirm due to lack of Persian abilities). We should get an opinion that reflects the treatment of religious minorities in Iran, which is far from idyllic, but doesn't correspond to the cited view by Khomeini, either. Eperoton (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I interpreted WP:UNDUE differently, I didn't object to whether or not the proportion of opinions from Sunni/Shiite Islam weren't equal, rather that the one who added the passage from Tabataba'i gives weight to that particular passage from his exegesis rather than try to find what his actual statements on the status of dhimmis in modern Islamic states were. So it should rather be called "off-topic" rather than WP:UNDUE. 16:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I think WP:SYNTHESIS is the relevant policy here. The section can be improved in other ways to be more to the point. For example, al-Qaradawy takes some specific policy positions in the TV program from which the current quote is taken. I have it on my to do list to put them into the article. Eperoton (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Religious discrimination
IP User:2601:282:4302:C8C0:88B4:CD07:A9E:DB1B removed the "religious discrimination" tag from this article, without bothering to leave an edit comment. Dhimitude is clearly an example of religious discrimination; it is a system of discriminatory laws applying only to non-muslims.

Accordingly I reverted the deletion, and it has been deleted again, and once more without an edit comment. Actually, it's hard to wedge a comment into that field, since most of the available space is occupied by this user's IPV6 address - but I can manage it.

So for the second time I've reverted the deletion. Please don't delete this tag again without attempting to discuss it here. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dhimmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724045752/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455 to http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28381455

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Heavy Bowdlerization
No mention is made of the heavy discrimination against non-dhimmi polytheists.

SStewartGallus (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete. Focuses on mildest most modern form of dhimmi which by all accounts is practices in Iran today. Ignores the early harsher form of dhimmi which ISIS/ISIL wishes to return. Also ignores a few negative if avoidable aspects of modern dhimmi system. These are important if not always flattering to Islam in the eyes of the West. Intellectually the modern system is discriminatory beyond mere separation of people by religion and lack of political power to permanent residents - but its usually livable to those who do not want to leave.

No mention that during the Jihad years, Muslims were discouraged for doing basic business with dhimmi quarter people -- to include selling basic foodstuffs. In many cases dhimmi quarters of different sects (e.g. Christians and Jews) were not allowed to trade with each other directly. Other times external trade was allowed but only under extremely heavy taxes (35%+). Also rights to own land was often restricted to the dhimmin quarter of a city. Thus in practice this was often merely a soft sell version of "convert or starve" in any but the largest captured cities. Originally only the largest cities had dhimmi quarter large enough to be self-sustaining. But gradually more exceptions were made for dhimmi merchants with special artisan skills which eroded prejudice in trade and undermined the economic pressure to convert to Islam.

It was not until the late 14th century, that things evolved to the only mildly discriminatory dhimmi system advertised above in most locations. However...this still usually meant that dhimmi citizen rights were only fully guaranteed within their own quarter or when engaged in legitimate business trip outside their quarter. Otherwise rights in practice wer somewhat variable especially after the strict curfew which applied in most cases to dhimmi citizen outside their quarter. Of course Islamic cities also applied curfew restriction on Islamic women and often even some restrictions on ordinary civilians. Still dhimmi citizen risked severe informal beatings were as Islamic citizens would get a hearing by a mullah which for males would likely be only a fine and at most a couple lashes (however, Islamic women found alone after dark might well be stoned as whores).


 * Note by all accounts the Iran practices this modern dhimmi system of the article.

70.114.136.69 (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that ISIS/ISIL wants the early 10th century-13th century stuff I described above in its rawest "convert or starve" format. Such fundamentalist considers the "modern" dhimmi like anything after the 13th century or end of Jihad expansion to be decadent and corrupted by western Christianity.
 * If you have any good sources for the way ISIS treats or proposes to treat non-Muslims, please propose them here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag: Comparison with Jews outside Muslim rule
I suppose this is a neutrality issue (does anyone have a better tag?). This article repeatedly compares the condition of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule with their conditions under the Catholics and Byzantines. What are such sentences are trying to prove and how often do we do this on Wiki? To give an example, do we ever say in any articles that the Nazis were better rulers for Poland than Russians and communists etc.? Swingoswingo (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparison of the conditions under Islamic rule versus the rule by Gentiles is the only way to understand dhimmitude because forms of inequality were prevalent at the time. The Dhimmi section cites sources that describe the relative levels of freedom. Jews were persecuted in Christendom so the fact that they were second-class citizens under Muslims is not really a big deal. This isn't Wikipedia's value judgement about the justice of it; this is explaining to the reader what the conditions were under various leaders in an era when all sorts of discrimination were common. Dhimmitude is only one system of legal discrimination. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These aren't the questions we should be asking and trying to answer per WP policies. The relevant question is: do RSs make these comparisons when they discuss the topic? The answer is yes, as one can see from the citations. Per NPOV, we need to reflect how RSs cover the topic.
 * As for the discrimination sidebar, it doesn't meet it doesn't meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and its placement is WP:UNDUE here. The use of this term for pre-modern periods is controversial and most of the sources cited here don't use it. Eperoton (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dhimmi: Jews
In this section I have noticed a number of mistakes such as lack of citations and a lack of a complete picture. For example, one sentence states, "Accustomed to survival in adverse circumstances after many centuries of discrimination and persecution within the Roman Empire, both pre-Christian and Christian, Jews saw the Islamic conquests as just another change of rulers". The idea that Jews were "accustomed to survival" is very biased and does not take in the individual experience. In addition, I plan to add information from Norman Stillman's article "Myth, Countermyth, and Distortion" that presents information of Jewish status of dhimmi's being a bad aspect of living under Arab rule. This information will help develop the debate between Stillman and Cohen (who is already presented in this subsection) of the conditions of Jewish status dhimmi's living under Arab control. Specifically, I would like to present how they disagree and why these debates are significant in understanding Jewish dhimmi status. I believe that so far this subsection only presents Cohen's argument that live as a dhimmi was not so bad, not Stillman's view that Jews still faced a life of strict law and a fear of oppression. If anyone has any comments about these changes, feel free to let me know.

Stillman, Norman. "Myth, Countermyth, and Distortion." Tikkun (May, 1991). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwalker3 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you see that section as lacking citations, furthermore, I don't see why you frame this as a "debate between Stillman and Cohen" when the section cites María Rosa Menocal, Bernard Lewis, Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Claude Cahen and Mark R. Cohen. 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I have no objection to adding Stillman's view, but the added paragraph has many problems, both linguistic and logical. I'm familiar with other writings by Stillman, and I'm pretty sure those problems weren't in the original. Since this article isn't readily available online, please quote the relevant passages so we can help to paraphrase them correctly. You've also deleted sourced content. The tagged unsouced portion is fair game to be challenged and removed, but you should either paraphrase the rest to preserve the sourced content or justify its removal. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok Arifkazi (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dhimmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813123204/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/ to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115065145/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109071705/http://www.twbookmark.com/books/52/0316566888/press_release.html to http://www.twbookmark.com/books/52/0316566888/press_release.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversion
Chris, please explain the reason for this reversion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.26.18 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you claim BBC says, Wikipedia is not going to say what militant Muslims are trying to do. I didn't look at your source but we need to have solid sourcing for making a claim like that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * that "source" was already in the article (the last citation in the section titled, "In modern times"), so can you restore that sentence? I don't want any edit war here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.26.18 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As the material is already in the article, it doesn't need to be added. Although it is in the article, it's doesn't need to be in the lede per WP:UNDUE. Jizya has existed for millennia and one BBC report saying Daesh is imposing it doesn't require a mention in the lede. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope
I reverted you. Please discuss before attempting to do again. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference given lead's you no where and you cannot know if that part of the text was actually in that reference given also if you read above and read the consituotion of medina how can you class them as second class citiens if they had the same rights as muslims?~Arsi786 (talk)
 * First, the Constitution of Medina only applied to that particular time. Clearly, dhimmitude was discriminatory. Second, the source cited is a book by Majid Khadduri and you can find it in a library and check pages 196-198. That's what we mean by verifiability. I can only wonder why you think it appropriate to removed cited material with such a flimsy excuse. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Dhimmi communities incomplete
There's sections to early Christian and Jewish communities in the Levant and Hindu communities in India (Buddhists aren't really covered), but where's the data on Christians in North Africa and Spain, Zoroastrians which were a major religious group in the early caliphates, Jains, African polytheistic religions and the old Arab polytheist religion? J390 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hindus and Buddhists section
This section doesn't seem to be directly connected to the topic. There does not seem to be any discussion of Hindu or Buddhist Dhimmi communities (though there are references to them elsewhere in the article) and infact the term is not even used once.39.37.185.43 (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits by IP
This edit by IP is problematic. It adds to the lead something that is not covered in the body. The lead is for summarizing, not adding new information. It also doesn't capture the nuance in the sources.

Finally, linking "non-Muslim" to kafir is controversial at best.VR talk 15:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)