Talk:Jizya/Archive 4

Moshe Gil's quote
I think Gil's view should be kept but placed under a section that explains Muhammad's relation with Jews rather than "Early Islam and the Rashidun Caliphate". If one thinks the quote is not balanced, it should be balanced using reliable sources. Having said this, I have the impression that Gil should not have been well presented here. It is claimed that Muhammad's original policy was "adopting a hard line towards the Jews in Medina". The original policy of Muhammad in Medina was however the one mentioned in the constitution of Medina regulating the relation of the Muslim and Jewish community. There is, also, a general agreement that Muhammad was initially very hopeful that the Jews would join his movement because they were monotheists. What Gil calls "the hard line towards the Jews in Medina" was, at least according to the POV of Muhammad's biographers, not a new thing but the breach from the terms laid down in the constitution of Medina. Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he met outside Medina was different because he had made no contract with them previously. Of course there is nothing wrong with mentioning Gil's view but I think it should be mentioned alongside the mainstream POV. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest point it that Muhammad's treatment of Jews in Medina had nothing to with Jizya. Jizya, by all accounts, wasn't exstablished until Tabuk and/or Khaybar (Tabuk according to Gil).Bless sins (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certianly does. A basic summary of your criteria for relecance is 'if Bless sins likes it, it is relevant.' That is not an acceptable criteria. Full quoting is better in this case, as it fairly represents all of Gil's views related to the topic.  Yahel  Guhan  06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be very unacquainted with this issue (that's why you are making wild accusations). The fact is that Gil himself says that this policy is unlike the policy of jizya. Thus not only are you adding irrelevant material, you are blatantly misrepresenting the issue.Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How am I misinterpriting it by fully quoting? You are by your strict censorship guidelines. You don't like what he says, so you declare it "irrelevant," and then declare a misquote, because you obvously either am trying to censor him, or you barely understand english. You do it on every article.  Yahel  Guhan  06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you continue to speak about which you don't know, I highly suggest you read the relevant page of the book. As soon as you read that page, it will become clear to you why exactly this is not relevant (hint Gil himself will say that this is not relevant). Also you are misrepresenting Kennedy. Have you read Kennedy?Bless sins (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have read the quote (which isn't misrepresented by full quoting), and it is clear you are playing your censorship games here agian. You enthesize the word "not" by taking it out of context as an attempt to justify censorship. Second, how am I misrepresenting Kennedy (more important, who is the Kennedy that you are talking about)?  Yahel  Guhan  06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The full quote is : "While previously the Prophet had adopted a hard line towards the Jews in Medina - which was expressed in dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation (Banu Qurayza), dispossessing the Jews in the towns in the northern part of the Arabian peninsula, depriving them of their proprety and turning them into tenants - he now altered his policy. During his own stay along the borders of Palestine, on land populated by Jews and Christians, he seems to have sensed that a wiser policy would be to convince them to acquiesce, to relinquish any intention of maintaining a military force and to rely on Muslims for their personal security and that of their possessions in exchange for the payment of taxes laid down according to special treaties."
 * The first part ("While previously the Prophet had adopted a hard line towards the Jews in Medina...")) has nothing to do with jizya. Gil says this when he says "he now altered his policy". Thus the jizya policy is different from the policy mentioned above. If you're still unsure, you may want to look up the definition of "alter".
 * "who is the Kennedy that you are talking about" This is clear evidence that you don't even know what you're reverting. If you look at your revert more carefully (insted of simply blindly reverting), you'll see that you're changing the content attributed to Hugh Kennedy. Since it is clear that you haven't a clue what the source says (you don't even know who Kennedy is), I'll revert back.Bless sins (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The first part is relevant, as it gives important background. Gil explains the old policy, and how it changed into the new policy. As for the kennedy part, you are probably just making this up to attempt to say I don't know what I am talking about.  Yahel  Guhan  08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting utterly ridiculous. The first part has nothing to do with Jizya. In case you haven't noticed this article is called "Jizya" not "Muhammad's policies". If something is not relevant to jizya it doesn't belong.
 * Secondly, you are once again pretending to not see something. In the lead, there is a source to Hugh Kennedy, and in your revert your altered the content before the source. Why? Have you read the source? Apparently not, since you just asked me who Hugh Kennedy is. If you can't see Hugh Kennedy (just like in the past you were unable to see blatant references) its not my problem.Bless sins (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you are right, it is getting rediculous, because your only arguement is "it is not relevant," which you repeat again and again. If something is not relevant, it doesn't belong, but your desires for censorship do not determine relevance. It is relevant by the sheer fact that is is background mentioned by Gil as to how Jizya came to be.
 * The content sourced to kennedy in both your version and my version is exactly the same. You are just bringing this up to argue (as usuaul). Please stop wasting my time disputing nothing.  Yahel  Guhan  08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat once more: Gil says that this policy is different from the policy of jizya. Yahel, do you understand the meaning of "alter"? It means to change. Change means different, or not the same. Not the same, means not the same as jizya, thus irrelevant. Perhaps you should go consult the dictionary.
 * Your version says "The tax was in theory levied on able bodied men of military age", my version says "The tax was levied on able bodied men of military age". Your version is inaccurate because it misrepresents what Kennedy says. Kennedy is not talking about theory but treats it as if it happened in practice.Bless sins (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hadith
Please stop blanking the hadith that mention jizya; they're relevant and informative, and the exact hadith are listed. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unsourced. There is no reliable source that considers these hadith to be talking about "jizya", and we don't even know if such hadith exist. Finally, we don't know the value of the hadith (are they sahih? are they mutawatir, mashhur or wahid?). This matters because we can't give undue weight to fringe opinions per WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? The hadith they are in are specifically named and numbered. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K., they're all footnoted now. They come from Sunan Abu-Dawud, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, three of the Six major Hadith collections, and Al-Muwatta, which forms the basis for Islamic jurisprudence, compiled by Malik ibn Anas, one of the most highly respected scholars of fiqh in Sunni Islam. But you know this already, so please stop playing games. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still you have provided no reliable secondary sources that relate these hadith to jizya. You can't quote the hadith like this. Can I quote the Torah saying "kill every woman who has slept with a man"? Or can I quote the Tanakh as saying "put to death men and women, children and infants"?
 * Oh BTW, you made some technical mistake (by accident I presume) that appears to have messed up the notes section.Bless sins (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? The hadith specifically say "jizya". And your reversion of me based on failing to close a ref is the lamest one yet. Jayjg (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And the Torah and Tanakh seem to order the killing of women and children. The point is we don't use primary sources (Hadith, Torah etc.) without a reliable secondary source. Oh, that you forgot to close a ref is not my fault (if anybody's).Bless sins (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? This is an article about jizya, not the "Torah and Tanakh", and it lists the Muslim sources that discuss jizya. Please come up with a new reason for rejecting the material, because the last three haven't made sense. And deleting a few dozen notes, after asking them, on the pretext that one wasn't formatted properly, is little more than vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? I assumed good faith by saying that your edits which corrupted sources for more than half the article making them completely unreadable, was an accident. And now you turn around and accuse me, who actually fixed the mistake that you made? Anyways, I don't want to engage in this pointless discussion.
 * "because the last three haven't made sense" Is "we don't use primary sources (Hadith, Torah etc.) without a reliable secondary source" not understandable? I'm using plain English here.Bless sins (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! No, removing twenty sources because a ref isn't closed properly isn't "fixing the mistake", it's disruptive and arguably vandalism. Closing the ref would have been "fixing the mistake". As for the use of primary sources, please quote the exact parts of policy that you feel support your argument. Jayjg (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If 20 references is vandalism, then your edits (which disabled 40 references) is beyond that. In this version (my one) there are 61 references. While in your version there number of references goes down to 21. Look Jayjg, I don't have the time to argue this. The dispute here is not the removal of references, it is the use of primary sources. MOSISLAM says "they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage." If you don't think this is good enough, I will start a discussion on a wiki policy page, looking for clarification.Bless sins (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Posted.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games, please; the missing close ref messed up the notes section, so all that was required was a close ref. Instead you played another game, deleting all the references instead, and pretending you had "fixed" the problem. As for the hadith in question, you're quoting a guideline, not a policy, and they're not being used to "make an argument or imply a particular interpretation" - if they are, please explain what that "argument" or "particular interpretation" is. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To users in general: the discussion has moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Islam-related_articles%29 so that a more general consensus can be reached on the usage of hadith.Bless sins (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic to list original sources on some topic; they should be added to wikisource if a secondary source that lists them all could be found (to avoid original research); here we can add a box referring the reader to wikisource.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources aren't simply "listed"; it would help if you would actually read the article, and make arguments that are relevant to policy. Jayjg (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "here we can add a box referring the reader to wikisource" That's an excellent idea.Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that it wouldn't solve the problem of summarizing their contents, would it? That's what Wikipedia is about. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How did you make sure that these are the only primary sources on the topic. Again, it is not encyclopedic to mine primary sources directly. Do you have a secondary source for this list? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not encyclopedic to mine primary sources directly". Sorry, I'm having trouble relating that back to policy in the case of this material in this specific article. Would you mind connecting the dots? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is WP:OR. We can not use primary sources directly, but only when secondary sources mention them, and even then after fairly summarizing the issue. I don't think these are all primary sources relevant to jizya anyways.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly how it is WP:OR. Please quote the relevant section, and explain how the hadith section in this article violates it, using specific examples. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I have an article on wikipedia, I can not add my info without proper sourcing. It is WP:OR because somebody has done the research of going through the primary sources and collecting quotes. Secondary sources get the juice of the quotes, analyze them, evaluate their authenticity, put them in context (if such a thing exists)... --Be happy!! (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly how it is OR. Please quote the relevant section of the NOR policy, and explain how the hadith section in this article violates it, using specific examples. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." - The section claims containing the Hadith primary sources on the topic. Why is that true (e.g. how can it be showed that the list is complete)? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable source is the University of Southern California's compendium of Muslim texts. Try again; please quote the relevant section of the NOR policy, and explain how the hadith section in this article violates it, using specific examples. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense says that you can cherry-pick scripture to show virtually anything. For the Bible as for the Islamic texts. Hadith in particular because their reliability varies. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My common sense does not say that you can use the Bible to show that life on Mars exists. Probably, some special kind of common sense is required for that. Beit Or 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you may want to know that hadith are not "scripture". Beit Or 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a comment that's generally true, but one that is not particularly relevant to this material in this article. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the University of Southern California's compendium of Muslim texts, it's the Muslim Students Association's. Secondly, the descriptions are interpretive, and the presentation assigns importance to narrations which actually may not be significant to the understanding of jizya (a passage simply mentioning the word "jizya" doesn't make it of pressing importance, just like mentioning of the word Allah doesn't make the narration immediately relevant to the article Allah). Lists of source texts belong on Wikisource.
 * As a side issue, a few of the descriptions misrepresent the context of the narrative. For example, the statement about Mughira fighting non-Muslims until they pay jizya fails to adequately summarise the cited source, which is talking about Mughira addressing the Khosrau's representative and his forty thousand warriors (not generalised comments about "non-Muslims" which is incredibly vague). Similarly, the statement attached to citation 31 talks about demanding jizya from non-Muslims, whereas the text is talking specifically about polytheists.
 * There's very little that's encyclopedic about a spam of primary sources (often repetitive), implying that narrations which may be mentioning jizya in passing actually contribute anything of substance to our understanding of the levy, beyond superficial comments like "Jesus will abolish jizya", which can easily be sourced to secondary sources. If the interest here is providing a reference to the primary sources available on the topic, one might consider something like this at the end of the article.  ITAQALLAH   20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, finally an argument that makes sense. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * SO you agree that we shouldn't list hadith at random (but that we should list them if there are quoted by a reliable secondary source).Bless sins (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've marked the section as OR because the list is not sourced to a third party and appears to compiled by the editors by doing his own research of performing searches and stating what the hadith says. To not be OR they need to referenced by a tertiary RS saying that they refer to Jizya including what they mean. WP:MoS Islam is also against such a usage of the primary sources, hadith and quran.--Salikk (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Gil's quote again
Assuming that this quote is relevant to this article (not sure how exactly it is), it is POV. Watt says (Muhammad in Medina, p.216-217):

"The continuing presence of at least a few Jews in Medina is an argument against the view sometimes put forward by European scholars that in the second year after Hijra, Muhammad adopted a policy of clearing all Jews out of Medina just because they were Jews, and that he carried out this policy with ever-increasing severity. In general it was not Muhammad's way to have definite policies of such a kind. What he did have was a balanced view of the fundamentals of the contemporary situation and of his long-term aims, and in the light if this he moulded his day-to-day plans in accordance with the changing factors in current events. The occasions of attacks on Qaynuqa and an-Nadir are no more than occasions ..."

Also, please also see my above comment on the other section and the follow up discussion. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"" Jayjg (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policy do you think "overquoting a single non-mainstream source" comes under? -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the non sequitur policy? This article doesn't "overquote a single non-mainstream source." Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys also please note my argument. Gil never says that the "dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation" (stated on pg. 28) is related to "jizya" (the word is nowhere to be found until page 30). Gil also says that the "dispossession..." policy was the initial policy, and imposing "taxes" was a later policy. He doesn't make a connection at all between the two.Bless sins (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, except where he mentions in the same paragraph that the taxation policy replaced the dispossession policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The quote is irrelevant to Jizya 2. Even if it were relevant, it is given undue weight and is clearly has an anti-Islamic POV. This quote really requires to be discussed and balanced before being added. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Your assertion doesn't bear any resemblance to the facts. 2. One brief paragraph from a reliable source isn't "UNDUE", nor is it "anti-Islamic POV". The quote has been in the article, rightfully, for many months, as no policy-based rationale for removing it has been advanced. There's been a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but no actual policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that for example Watt says that Muhammad had no specific policy at all? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watt says "In general it was not Muhammad's way to have definite policies of such a kind". In general. Is the quote from Watt referring to jizya? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is the first part of Gil's quote when talks about Muhammad's alleged policy in Medina is relevant to Jizya. Do you agree that Watt disagrees with Gil on what is quoted from Gil? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil says, in effect, "Muhammad first had a policy of dispossession, then he substituted a policy of jizya". You're claiming that the first half of that sentence is irrelevant, the part that discusses what jizya replaced. That, of course, is ridiculous. And Watt doesn't address Gil's statements; nor, apparently, is he writing about jizya. For someone who keeps claiming things are original research, it's rather astonishing how willing you are to use it when trying to refute Gil's statements. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Watt says Muhammad had no specific policy while Gil claims that he had a policy. They are in contradiction, aren't they? Aside from these, the Jewish tribes broke their pacts with Muhammad. Where is that covered in the so-called " policy of dispossession"? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ' Where is that covered in the so-called " policy of dispossession" ' Nowhere at all. Jayjg only seeks to present a one-sided view of things. I suppose that's what happens when you use your original research to quote material irrelevant to jizya in the article.Bless sins (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Watt address Gil's point? I would imagine not, since Watt published his book over 50 years ago. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Muhammad first had a policy of dispossession, then he substituted a policy of jizya" This is where Jayjg's original research starts. Gil never says "jizya". He doesn't use jizya on the entire page. "Taxes" doesn't mean jizya, since under Islam there have been many taxes (Kharaj, ushr etc.).
 * "You're claiming that the first half of that sentence is irrelevant," Except Gil doesn't put the two in the same sentence. Gil puts them in different sentences.Bless sins (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Different sentences in the same paragraph. You're grasping at straws. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The relation of Muhammad and the Jews are defined in the Constitution of Medina and similar ones. That's the recorded pact. What happened as a result of breaking that pact is secondary. It is Gil's pure interpretation that it was primary. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your original research is fascinating, but I'd prefer to stick to what the reliable source Gil says. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near fascinating as your WP:OR. Gil never connects the jizya with the policy.Bless sins (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is, unlike you, Jayjg isn't introducing WP:OR to this article. Your interpritations are OR, as they, like usuaul, deviate from the intended message of the writer.  Yahel  Guhan  00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "unlike you, Jayjg isn't introducing WP:OR to this article" Actually he is. But before we discuss this, tell me, where am I "introducing WP:OR to this article"? If you accuse me of something, you better back it up with evidence.Bless sins (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing Gil
"According to Moshe Gil, the ordinance of jizya happened after the campaign at Tabuk, when Muhammad attempted to convince Jews and Christians to acquiesce, to not maintain a military force and to depend on Muslims for their personal security and that of their possessions in exchange for the payment of taxes"

does not mean:

"an important turning point in Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews and the Christians. While previously the Prophet had adopted a hard line towards the Jews in Medina - which was expressed in dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation (Banu Qurayza), dispossessing the Jews in the towns in the northern part of the Arabian peninsula, depriving them of their property and turning them into tenants - he now altered his policy. During his own stay along the borders of Palestine, on land populated by Jews and Christians, he seems to have sensed that a wiser policy would be to convince them to acquiesce, to relinquish any intention of maintaining a military force and to rely on Muslims for their personal security and that of their possessions in exchange for the payment of taxes laid down according to special treaties"

Thus it is an inappropiate and bias summary, and is therefore WP:OR. Just leave the full quote alone so we can worry about something that actually matters.  Yahel  Guhan  02:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil mentions all those facts. Does he not mention the "campaign at Tabuk"? Does he not say "convince them to acquiesce, to relinquish any intention of maintaining a military force and to rely on Muslims for their personal security and that of their possessions in exchange for the payment of taxes"? Exactly what part of my summary is OR? None actually. In any case, as you notice in the above summary, Gil doesn't mention "jizya". There is no word j-i-z-y-a. Try looking for it and you won't find it till two pages later.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On page 28 Gil discusses Muhammad's new policy (including payment of taxes), replacing the previous policy (which "which was expressed in dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation") as evidenced by four preserved letters. On 28 and 29 he then lists the contents of the letters. On 30 he then explains that in these letters, which discuss the new policy, including the new taxes, one finds for the first time "certain key words" including jizya. B.S., we're not stupid, and we've been over this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On page 28 Gil says that the prophet "altered his policy". DO you know the meaning of the word alter? It means to change, not remain the same. Even assuming the second policy calls for jizya, it is different from the first policy. The jizya was never imposed at the time of the Qurayza (which you are deliberately inserting). Infact, Gil says the new policy came after the Battle of Tabuk. The battle happened in 630 AD (thus the jizya came after 630), the Qurayza were "annihilated" in 627 AD. Even if the new policy has to do with jizya, it is clear that it has nothing to do with Qurayza.
 * Secondly, yes the prophet's new policy was regarding taxes. No jizya is not the only tax imposed in history of Islam. There is the kharaj. There is also the ushr. Both taxes are imposed on non-Muslims. After the Battle of Khaybar, the Jews also paid a certain type of tax (or tribute) in the form of agricultural goods. All of these taxes are applied on non-Muslims (there are taxes for Muslims as well, such as zakat and khums). To say that "Taxes"="jizya" is incorrect, as even Gil doesn't say that.
 * Finally if we mention the policy of "dispossession" then we should also mention other views on that policy (for the sake of NPOV). Aminz provided a Watt quote above. There is plenty of other evidence suggesting the Jews has plotted to assassinate Muhammad or cooperate with his enemies at war, before this policy formed.Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote seems relevant. It appears clear to me that Gil is presenting this as something that was altered to bring the policy of jizya into being, not irrelevant context as some here appear to be claiming. That being said, perhaps we can accept a compromise that involves summarizing the long quote in half the length, or something, instead of deleting it outright. - Merzbow (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "something that was altered to bring the policy of jizya into being" What is that supposed to mean? I don't see Gil saying that. And if that something was "altered" then it mean it didn't remain the same. If its not the same, the why quote it in this article? Finally, the only compromise here will be that we provide the full context (not give a one sided view that Jayjg is giving) about the Jews' attempts at assassinating the prophet and their assistance to the prophet's enemies to bring about the extermination of Muslims.Bless sins (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you have a reliable source that gives an alternative view on the evolution of jizya please add it. - Merzbow (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Gil says that the new policy was regarding "taxes". Note that "taxes" is not equal to jizya. There are taxes other than jizya. See my response on 16:24, 26 April 2008.Bless sins (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If an article is on a policy B, and that evolved from a policy A, it is certainly relevant and important to discuss policy A. And Jay clearly explains how Gil ties A->B. I repeat Jay's words: "On page 28 Gil discusses Muhammad's new policy (including payment of taxes), replacing the previous policy (which "which was expressed in dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation") as evidenced by four preserved letters. On 28 and 29 he then lists the contents of the letters. On 30 he then explains that in these letters, which discuss the new policy, including the new taxes, one finds for the first time "certain key words" including jizya." - Merzbow (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, please let me know if you agree that the quote is POV? there are many problems with it in my opinion: the story started with the constitution of Medina and what Gil calls Muhammad's policy where, at least in the view of early biographers, break of that very pact. You can find historians that add other reasons (e.g. economic motives), but nobody denies on the face of it that Muslims read the actions of the Jewish tribes to be against their contract. As you can see from Watt's quote above, Muhammad did not have a fixed policy. He acted day to day (please see the quote at the beginning of the section).
 * In my opinion adding this single quote does not do justice to the matter. This is an issue of fairness. I don't know why we even have to add Gil's view as a quote; this view is not a universally accepted view. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil is a reliable source, an expert scholar on the subject. Maybe he's wrong, but that's not an excuse to delete his views. If there are alternative views from other scholars, the solution is to add them for balance. Today I will add a shorter summary of the quote. - Merzbow (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, I know Gil is a reliable source but my question was whether it is POV (Point Of View). Honestly, isn't it strange that the Gil does not mention Constitution of Medina defining the relation of Muslims and Jews. If Gil wants to construct something called Muhammad's general policy based on the subsequent developments and the way things worked out later (as conspiracy theories usually do), it is fine to me and yes I would say it should be mentioned but why have we left the more accepted view here. Look, the problem, if I understand it correctly, is with Jayjg demand that we can not use sources talking about Constitution of Medina, Banu Nadir etc directly unless they mention Jizya explicitly in that paragraph. Otherwise a fuller account of the story is already included in other articles and there is no lack of reliable sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's POV. Every scholar has his own POV. We report scholar A's POV on subject X, and also scholar B's POV on subject X, and the resolve is NPOV. Gil has one view of Muhammad's treatment of the Jewish communities that he ties into the introduction of jizya, some other scholar may say something different. So we give another sentence with the other scholar's view. - Merzbow (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except he doesn't talk about jizya until p. 30. Whereas the old "policy" isn't mentioned past p. 28. The only phrase that would be common in the 2 policies would "he now altered his policy". Yet that statements clarifies that the two policies were different, not the same (that's what "alters" means). Once again the article is not about Muhammad's policy, but jizya only.Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Political leaders alter their policies all the time. It is almost always relevant to discuss what the previous policy was. For example, the US altered its policy of isolationism when it decided to intervene in WWI. Does that mean the WWI article cannot discuss the previous policy at all? Of course not. - Merzbow (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Merzbow. But I think the issue is deeper. The questions that we ask shape the discussion and the answers provided thereto. Gil is proceeding with the assumption that Muhammad had "policies" toward Jews. The next question would then arise: how did these policies changed? For others, and in my view this is the correct one, Muhammad did have a treaty with the Jewish tribes of Medina but had none with the Jews of Khaybar. The next question that scholars usually ask is the reasons of attack on Khaybar, instead of asking the question of how this was part of a big-overall-policy of Muhammad. Only when the former is asked the answers would be that Jews of Khaybar had joined the siege of Medina and they were still intriguing against Muhammad, that there were economic and social factors etc. When those questions are not asked, balancing out Gil's view would be hard. More precisely Watt does say that "he moulded his day-to-day plans in accordance with the changing factors in current events...The occasions of attacks on Qaynuqa and an-Nadir are no more than occasions" but he does not use the term "jizya" in the same paragraph. Please let me know if I have explained my statement unambiguously. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without agreeing on specifics, we can all agree that Muhammad had some notable interactions with these communities before the formal introduction of jizya, and we can agree that at least Gil sees an evolution here. So we have at least one reliable scholar who ties Muhammad's prior actions to jizya - i.e., he altered these policies. We can summarize Gil's quote on this, and I'd have no objection adding the view of another scholar with something different to say about the events mentioned, even if that other scholar doesn't tie them to the introduction of jizya. - Merzbow (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being, that, according to Gil, the new jizya policy represented a change from the previous policies. On page 28 Gil discusses Muhammad's new policy (including payment of taxes), replacing the previous policy (which "which was expressed in dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation") as evidenced by four preserved letters. On 28 and 29 he then lists the contents of the letters. On 30 he then explains that in these letters, which discuss the new policy, including the new taxes, one finds for the first time "certain key words" including jizya. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance

 * Some care is needed with such "balancing", in particular, to avoid being anachronistic. For example, contrasting Watt and Gil: there's a difference of 50 years or so involved, so a simple contrast would suggest that there was no scholarship or (re-)evaluation of facts and sources in between; if it's a question of who is contradicting whom, it should be clear that Gil's opinion is after Watt's, and certainly not the other way around.  And in general, later or current scholarship, where it exists, should be given greater weight. rudra (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except nothing happened between Watt and Gil. No new evidence was discovered, there was no archaeological dig. Yes, there are some who have "re-examined" the evidence, but their conclusions are the "policy" never happened - not exactly the POV that's being pushed here.Bless sins (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to hold the bizarre view that once expert X enunciates an opinion Y on a subject Z based on fragmentary sources, then that's it for all time. Now I understand why you'd like to have all scholarship on the subject frozen at Watt, but that isn't how the Humanities work.  Evidence is constantly re-evaluated; and Gil looks to have canvassed a larger body of works.  I'd suggest not trying so hard to concoct bogus arguments. rudra (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point but in this particular case, Watt's biography is still a classics in the field. Watt died in 2006. This is what Prof. Carole Hillenbrand in an article published about him after his death
 * "His early books on Islam concentrate primarily on the career of the Prophet Muhammad. They are based on a close analysis of the original Arabic sources and the two works Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and, especially, Muhammad at Medina (1956) remain classic studies."
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nonetheless they were written 50 years ago, long before more modern scholarship on the subject. Did Watt have access to the early letters of Muhammad? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But Gil certainly did. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which early letters of Muhammad? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aminz, have you not been following this discussion? I find this very discouraging. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no reason as to why he wouldn't. Secondly the letters don't have much to do with the "policy" of "dispossession etc." so I'm not sure why you'd expect Aminz to be familiar with them.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to be aware of the letters we have been discussing for months here. As for the letters, your original research is interesting, but Gil says the letters are, in fact, the examples of that policy. Again, we have the book, we can read, we are not idiots. The fact that Gil makes his argument over 3 pages does not mean that page 30 is discussing a topic completely unrelated to page 28. This may shock you, but sometimes authors even take a whole chapter to make an arguments. Astounding, I know! Fortunately, though, in this case Gil only takes three pages to make it; on page 28 Gil discusses Muhammad's new policy (including payment of taxes), replacing the previous policy (which "which was expressed in dispossession, eviction, and even annihilation") as evidenced by four preserved letters. On 28 and 29 he then lists the contents of the letters. On 30 he then explains that in these letters, which discuss the new policy, including the new taxes, one finds for the first time "certain key words" including jizya. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "the letters we have been discussing for months here" Actually we stopped discussing the letters months ago. Infact, we reached a compromise back in January. It is only after this that you suddenly started to connect jizya with the policy . Before this you had never done that (I am curious as to why).
 * Expecting Aminz to know about the issues before and in January (that was a long time ago) is a bit silly.
 * "but Gil says the letters are, in fact, the examples of that policy" The policy of "dispossesion, annihilation...."? No. If you think so, please quote the part where Gil says this. From what I read the letters are "letters of security".
 * "This may shock you, but sometimes authors even take a whole chapter to make an arguments. Astounding, I know" To you maybe, not to me. However, this doesn't that one sentence in one chapter is necessarily relevant to another. For example, the same chapter mentions conquest of Mecca, or the agricultural trade between Medina and Palestine. Surely these concepts are related to jizya?
 * Finally, I find do find one thing astonishing: you have so far been unsuccessful in finding another source on the face of earth that connects the policy of "dispossession "etc. to jizya. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of sources on the topic, yet the only one you will pursue it is where you have to perform synthesis of several arguments.Bless sins (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, I think disqualifying Watt requires more evidences because of the giant he was. On page 128, Muhammad in Medina, Watt says: "From a letter of Muhammad's to some of the local rulers which tells them to pay sadaqah and jizyah to his agents..." I haven't personally heard of recent discoveries of Muhammad's letters. I am however open in the face of evidences that would disqualify Watt as outdated though I think the issue of Gil's "policies" is more fundamental than that. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Small correction. In January, Jayjg replaced your inaccurate bias summary with a full quote. To you maybe, not to me You apparently haven't read many books then. It happens all the time. Why else would scholars write many several hundred page books? Why do you think they do that? Because they like to waste paper? Space? the time of their readers? No. It is because they are making a point, and often a rather large point. Here is another one of your common arguements. If something doesn't agree with your bias, you say it is a fringe theory. Stop this rediculous censorship.  Yahel  Guhan  06:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you'll have to be clearer. Could you address the point, please? What clearly links the quote to the subject? -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the source  Yahel  Guhan  06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the three pages in question, and it is blindingly obvious how relevant the quote is. Page 28: we have "While previously the Prophet had adopted a hard line... he now altered his policy.... sensed that a wider policy would be to convince them to acquiesce... payment of taxes laid down according to special treaties. Letters of protection have been preserved." Excerpts from the letters then follow until page 30. On page 30, of the letters, Gil writes: "Here can be found certain words for the first time... tax (jizya)". This is as clear-cut as it gets on Wikipedia, folks. Anyways I agree the quote is too long and will summarize it, as promised. - Merzbow (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merzbow do you not what the word "alter" means? No, seriously. It means to change, and not remain the same. Right? Please answer this question.
 * On page 28, I see "jizya" nowhere. Is your argument that all taxes are jizya? that too is unsound, since there are other taxes imposed on non-Muslims like kharaj and Ushr (both of these can be found in Gil's book as well).
 * Also, please don't make explicit the letters. There was consensus that these letters would stay in the Notes section.Bless sins (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and summaries
New policy? What, then (according to Gil), was the old policy? Considering that paras 38 and 37 are just quotes of letters, we find it in para 36, as expected, in the sentence ending with "he now altered his policy": the old policy was one of "dispossession, eviction and even annihilation (Banu Qurayza)". Now I understand how this is acutely uncomfortable for the whitewash brigade, but the wikilawyering will have to stop. rudra (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "whitewash brigade" Please mind WP:CIVIL. Also I don't understand the point of above post. Gil says "altered" (alter means change, not the same, do you agree?), does he not?
 * Also how come there is no source on earth that connects the policy of "dispossession..." with jizya? Like I said there are dozens (if not hundreds) of sources on the topic.Bless sins (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (If you think WP:CIVIL requires me to ignore or excuse your POV-pushing, tendentiousness and contentious divagation, then you are, quite simply, wrong.) We are discussing Gil's quote.  He should either be quoted in context, or summarized with that context expressed.  The brief of his quote is the historical origin of jizya which, according to him, emerged in a change of policy towards Jews and Christians.  As for your attempts to muddy the issue yet again, the connection between "dispossession" and "jizya" is one of historical sequence, but historians were never obliged to combine them into the single sentence soundbite without which your comprehension could have suffered. rudra (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be summarized:

I note that the POV-pushing here has been aimed at suppressing Muhammad's attitudes and actions towards the Jews and Christians before Tabuk, but that won't fly, sorry. The how and why of "jizya started with Tabuk" has a proper historical context. rudra (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Does "alter" not mean "different" (i.e. not the same)? Thus, is Gil not saying that the new policy was different from the old policy? Please answer.
 * And regarding "suppressing Muhammad's attitudes and actions towards the Jews and Christians before Tabuk" Nor will the Jews' attempted assassination of Muhammad and annihilation of Muslims be suppressed (which was the reason for his old policy). Is that quite ok, or do you push only one POV over another?Bless sins (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, "alter" entails "different", a change from something to something else. That's obvious.  What's your point?  That there was no change? rudra (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Ec)The POV-pushing has happened both ways. We neither ignore the origins of Muhammad's choice, nor do we spend a cheerful amount of time summarising the fact that he was dispossessing, evicting and annihilating, along with another bloody link to Banu Qurayza. We attribute this to Gil, since we haven't found anyone else making the point. We point out that others claim that there was no specific policy prior to the institution of this. If a neutral paragraph cannot be written, the material does not need to be included. If a neutral paragraph continues to not be written, I will have this page protected at the wrong version and then we will edit through protection if necessary, or we will keep the paragraph out, since it is really not necessary to detail Gil's opinion of what the beginnings of what eventually led to jizya replaced, only how jizya came about. Frankly, all this is pathetic. (Proper historical context, indeed. Where does the quote from Gil address the reasons why "he seems to have sensed" it? How the hell is that historical context? Please, its being used as another coatrack to introduce the story about how Muslims have always wanted to massacre Jews, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Equivalently, why is nobody attempting to point out that historical context is indeed necessary, and trying to locate an alternative, instead of going into the history of earlier policy, which is definitely irrelevant?) -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are addressing the original excerpt, not mine, yes? As for historical context, did you want Gil to speculate on reasons?  How would guesswork contribute to context?  Gil does use the adjective "wiser", but he doesn't elaborate in what way it was so.  Perhaps Muhammad thought that he couldn't deal with those northern communities in the same fashion as those closer to home?  In reality, we don't know why Muhammad innovated, only that he did with the Tabuk campaign. (Note that asbab al-nuzul exegetes also place Q9:29 -- the "original" source of the word jizya -- at that time).  As for lack of policy, that's Watt's take.  Donner, by contrast, doesn't address policy at all -- not even to deny it -- in his Early Conquests; instead, he talks about three (interdependent) "themes" in Muhammad's consolidation of power: overcoming other powerful settled groups such as the Jewish clans (accomplished in Medina "at the cost of exiling the first two and liquidating the last of the Jewish clans after earlier efforts to secure their support had been rebuffed"), defeating the Quraysh in Mecca (and subsequently winning them over by lenient treatment), and bringing the nomadic groups under control (by cornering the agricultural and market centers where they would come to trade, and then forcing them to accept sadaqa arrangements if they didn't settle down and convert).  And Donner does emphasize the revolutionizing impact of a new religion on what would otherwise have been simply a competent demonstration of warlordism.  So, what Donner sees impersonally as "theme" in no way contradicts what Gil personalizes as "policy".  And yes, there's still an elephant in the room. rudra (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I point out that he is conducting guesswork? And if there are no indicative reasons, then there is no context? Donner's "themes" in no way contradict Gil's policy"? Please. Gil, as written, implies a coherent desire to exterminate as a religious project. Donner, as written, implies rational political calculus. Watt implies randomness. Its clearly disputed, which is why the elephant in the room is why we're fighting to include the politically convenient one. That, in my book, is tendentious, elephantine, POV-pushing. Have fun. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we compromise on a summary of the Gil material, like I've re-added, and move on. - Merzbow (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The full quote is, in my view, better, but in the spirit of compromise I accept your summary. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Rudrasharman: This is the n^th time that you use uncivil language. Stop it please. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you deem drawing attention to the elephant in the room to be "uncivil". As if there's no POV-pushing going on here.  Gosh, there couldn't possibly be any.  POV-pushing?  What's that?
 * Sorry, I belong to the WP:SPADE camp. rudra (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aminz, please do not re-write this compromise text in a POV way, and in particular, please do not add material from sources not discussing jizya. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any consensus was formed. I narrated the whole story in an NPOV way. If the Jewish tribes were exiled or men killed it was because of the pacts they had; the constitution of Medina & because of their relation with the Meccans. Putting the whole story to be determined by Muammad's so-called "policy" without mentioning the pacts and the context etc is not neutral. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you re-worded it in a POV way - if you don't accept the compromise, we'll have to go back to the direct quote. As for all the rest of the stuff you added, please review WP:SYNTH:
 * "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * Do the sources you cited discuss jizya? Not as far as I can tell, and that's the topic of this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When Gil is talking about the previous policy of Muhammad, he is talking about his treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina as his book shows. His view on that matter is biased and all the other sources are talking about Muhammad's treatment of the Jewish tribes of Medina. F. E. Peters for example says:
 * As you can see this is talking about Muhammad's dealing with the Jewish tribes of Medina.
 * It is not that Muhammad acted against the Jewish tribes of Medina because he simply had a fixed policy to kill or expel them all; his behavior was prompted by what "he read as treasonous"
 * We need to discuss this because only mentioning Gil's view on Muhammad's dealing with the Jewish tribes of Medina makes the article POV.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can provide an alternative viewpoint on the events that Gil brings up even if the other sources don't specifically mention jizya. I've done some editing of Aminz' text that summarizes some of the background, and tries to balance out Peters' and Gil's analyses of the controversial events. - Merzbow (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had a question: Does "Jews in the northern Arabian peninsula" refer to those in Khaybar? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also had a question: If we are mentioning what Muhammad did to those tribes, what's the reason for including the personal descriptive view of Gil instead of letting the readers conclude how it was. This is like finding a quote saying Muhammad was a great man (which one can find very easily) but instead the clinical way of doing it is to mention the bare facts and let the readers make up their own conclusions. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bare facts, in historical sequence: B. Qaynuqa expelled, B. Nadir expelled, B. Qurayza liquidated, Khaybar reduced with remnant to pay 50% of their produce, other Jewish communities (Fadak, Wadi 'l-Qura, Tayma) accepted similar terms without a fight. (At which point, Rodinson says, "As far as Muhammad was concerned, the Jewish problem was practically solved.") rudra (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct way is to mention them together with the context behind them. Muslims and non-Muslims of course see things through different glasses and the meaning and significance of the issues are different for them. What you mentioned however are not the bare facts. B. Qurayza were on the verge of attacking Muslims from behind in the worst possible time when they were surrounded by an army as large as 10000 men. The Jews in Khaybar who had hosted Banu Nadir played a good role in the siege of Medina and were willing to bribe other tribes by half of their annual produce as bribe to enlarge the confederacy against Muhammad. Muhammad was in the full state of war; and there is a political explanation for every of his moves (there are also theological aspects to them such as being a comprehensive manifestation of God's names which not only include merciful, etc but also the mighty, the avenger etc, but that's an explanation only for Muslims). Your list of bare facts are not comprehensive I am afraid. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bare facts do not include allegations or hypotheticals ("were on the verge of", "were willing to bribe"). Nor evaluations ("worst", "good").  There are no independent confirmations: the inference that Muhammad viewed these groups as threats (the "political explanation") is drawn only on the basis of him having acted decisively to eliminate such perceived threats. Bare facts do not include apologetics. rudra (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the bare facts are the primary sources we have; and we should mention according to this report X happened etc; anything beyond that includes some form of conjecture. What I said, could be found in the primary sources.
 * I completely disagree with your comment and I don't think we are supposed to discuss such things on wikipedia. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the primary sources are not facts. They are reports, presumed to have some factual content rather than none.  Now that we've established that, to you, bare facts aren't bare facts unless they're suitably adorned, I agree, we can drop this subject. rudra (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The bare facts are that "according to report X, Y happened". I didn't say the truth of those statements. And yes, people can make up their own minds about the reliability of the reports but most scholars do not approach the sources the way you seem to do above. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bare facts do not include allegations or hypotheticals" Banu Qurayza agreement with the Meccans to attack Medina, once they received the hostages, is actually a "bare fact".Bless sins (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To Jayjg, I have a question: is the topic of Muhammad's old policy (i.e. the policy in which he "dispossessed,..." ) relevant or irrelevant to the topic of jizya? Yes or no, because I want this to be crystal clear.Bless sins (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is relevant is exactly what reliable sources have directly connected to the topic of jizya. No more, no less. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have two issues to raise here:
 * I have two issues to raise here:


 * 1) Gil seems to be the only one with such a stance and just how notable is he? I have never heard of him. His opinion if singular would qualify under WP:Fringe and occupies significant space.
 * 2) The POV sense seems to arise from the way the policy is depicted. It appears to read that "the policy" was an agenda against Jews or Christians whereas the POV that he had to take up arms, in progressively escalating deterrent actions, against armed internal groupings due to specific political circumstance (aka Watt, no specific policy) which later resulted in his adoption of the jizyaesque demilitarizing "policy" with new groups. I think it can be resolved by appropriately balancing things by focusing on the POV issue. A complete statement of which would be a policy to achieve x through y actions. The POV is what was the policy about?? A cursory statement of accused does not adequately cover this POV in order to balance the section.--Salikk (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Two cities
Aqaba and Eilat are two cities that are close to each other, but different settlements. When Gil says "Eilat" does he mean Eilat or Aqaba? Or is it the case that historically the two cities were the same so it doesn't matter?Bless sins (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He means Aqaba. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that?Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elath Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ismail Poonawala's translation of Tabari Vol IX ("The Last Years of the Prophet") has a footnote on "Aylah": "A seaport at the north end of the Gulf of 'Aqabah near the biblical site of Ezion-geber and Elath [...] Now it is called al-'Aqabah." He also cites EI 2nd ed s.v. "Ayla". rudra (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudra, the source you provided does appear to make that point. I think it should be added to the article.Bless sins (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries
Please could everyone pay attention to this to keep the temperature down. Say someone has in your opinion done something outrageously POV, in keeping with their usual POV-pushing record. Your edit summary could read "rv, NPOV, let's discuss". Look, no mention of "whitewashing", vandalism, editor's previous poor record, edit-warring or anything else that winds people up. Easy-peasy. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

An alternate version
The current version irrelevantly mentions the so-called Constitution of Medina, and reads unmistakeably in the "this one said this, that one said that" style of a clumsy resolution of a content dispute. My draft of a rewrite:

"Muhammad's relations with the Jews of Medina were marked by discord and progressive deterioration, a process also reflected in the Qur'an.[1] The Jews, who had categorically rejected Muhammad's claim to prophethood, were repeatedly found guilty of conniving with Muhammad's Meccan enemies.[2] Scores for such perfidy were settled after each major battle with the Meccans (Badr, Uhud, the Trench). In turn, two Jewish tribes were banished, their properties forfeit; the third was liquidated, adult men executed and the rest sold into slavery. Subsequently, the Jews of Khaybar, also held complicit in Meccan machinations, were reduced to tenancy, liable for half their produce. While the conquest of Khaybar apparently convinced other northern Jewish communities to accept similar terms without a fight,[3] such draconian settlements ended with the Tabuk campaign.  Letters issued by Muhammad to various Jewish and Christian communities in the area are the earliest documentary evidence of terms such as dhimma and jizya,[4] used to delineate a pact whereby the communities would forego bearing arms and pay a special tax in return for protection and security. Settlements with non-Muslim communities during the great conquests were to follow this paradigm.[5]" [1] "The parts of the Qur'an revealed at Medina show a notable hardening of attitudes towards contemporary Jews", FE Peters, p.101 [2] FE Peters, p.273 [3] Rodinson, p.254 [4] The revelation of Qur'an 9:29, which has the word jizya, is also commonly dated to this time. [5] Gil, p.28-30

References could be added, of course. rudra (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do historians say that the use of the term "dhimma" can be dated back to these letters of Muhammad? The dhimmi article doesn't say this. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil says this, while the dhimmi article doesn't mention the Tabuk campaign at all (which is odd, since the Quranic reference is to that occasion.) rudra (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you say a bit more here? I understood from my reading of Courbage and Fargues that the dhimmi concept might be traced back to the early acts of surrender but that it was developed much later. I don't remember them saying that the term "dhimma" or "dhimmi" was used at an early period. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a quote-box above with an excerpt from Gil. The relevant pages can also be read online at Google Books. It's possible that C&F doubt the authenticity of those letters.  Do they discuss the documentary evidence for this in depth? (As an aside, Baladhuri's usage may have been anachronistic, but I believe he had 'dhimma and jizya in reports for even earlier incidents.) rudra (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to avoid the passive voice here still. Who found them guilty? Who settled the scores? While the answers may seem obvious, the passive voice only serves to deflect and diffuse responsibility. And I still think we should attribute the most controversial of these statements to the scholars making them, in the text. - Merzbow (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Muhammad, of course. I thought it was obvious.  I have an active voice version here. rudra (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since modified. rudra (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is better, but we still need to tie the letters. I will edit to say that Gil is making this tie. - Merzbow (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of devoting an entire paragraph to this. It adds nothing to a discussion of jizya. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The letters contain the first mention of jizya, according to Gil. The letters were not issued in a vacuum; they were issued because Muhammad decided to alter his policies towards the communities in question (again according to Gil, and now we also have the view of Peters for balance, who takes a more sympathetic view of the Muslims' actions toward the Jews). We can't just start with "the letters" with no explanation of why they were being sent. Readers must be given context. - Merzbow (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only the paragraph doesn't say why they were sent, does it? -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say. (And they weren't necessarily sent). rudra (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gil does say why: "altered his policy", followed by a description of the new policy, followed by the letters which contain the new policy proposal. - Merzbow (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But Watt says there was no policy, let alone one to alter. Do you see where this is going? rudra (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If he does say that, then we report Watt's view also. (And as has been pointed out the views of more recent scholarship should be given more weight than older scholarship). - Merzbow (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, such a meta-discussion is just off-topic clutter, having to do with choices of words and scholarly disagreement over the evaluation of a series of actions. (One real indicator of a change of some significant kind -- whether from chaos to orderliness, or from one policy to another -- is the traditional exegesis of Q9:29.)  The overall context of jizya origins is Muhammad's dealings with Jews and Christians.  All we need is a brief statement of the dealings prior to the introduction of jizya at Tabuk.  Gil has provided the one-liner characterization ("dispossession, eviction and even annihilation"), but apparently that won't fly.  Neither should suppressing the prior history altogether. rudra (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're arguing for here, or who you agree with. Gil has a characterization, yes, but so do others, so we report them all for NPOV; they are all reliable sources. One POV "won't fly", several will. And we can do it succinctly, one sentence each. A difference of three or four sentences of background info in this article is not a huge deal, and very relevant (according to the most recent and thus arguably most reliable of the sources).- Merzbow (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing against the "this one said this, that one said that" style of writing. Unless the topic itself is a survey of expert opinion on a subject, and you're prepared to canvass with some reasonable expectation of thoroughness, it comes across as an amalgam of cherry-picking, POV-pushing and compromise, and reads horribly to boot (one can't help but think "well, why this particular authority by name in the main text?")  The basic idea here is to leave opinions out, unless the subject is the opinions of various authorities. rudra (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True, the proposed rewrite above doesn't. But the one in the article now does. I guess it's best to stick with the version in the article now and continue to make incremental changes. - Merzbow (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the latest version avoided the most blatant POV terms, it was faulty on one account: it collectively said that "the Jews" connived with Muhammad's Meccan enemies and that after each battle a tribe was accused of treachery. This is not accurate: the Qunayqa never connived with any enemy and were never accused of that. The Nadir (who had nothing to do with Uhud) were accused of trying to kill Muhammad and were expelled but their alliance with the Meccans came after this expulsion. Only for the Qurayza it is correct to say that they were accused of treachery after a battle, though they killed and not merely exiled.
 * I don't see the details as important to the narrative, so there is not reason to cover them BUT in this generalising overview, nothing should be said that is wrong when looking at the details. Hence, I removed the wrong parts and restricted the passage to an accurate generalising. Str1977 (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what Peters says and I can understand that your personal views may be different. If you know scholars who share your personal view and say otherwise, we can add that as well in addition to Peter's view. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about my "personal view" and certainly not about adding other scholars, which would not improve the section. If that is what Peters says, he give an inaccurate summary. We should be quoting this. You know the sources well enough that you know that what I write above is accurate. Str1977 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my personal view is not the same as yours. For one thing, a leader of Nadir after the battle of Badr went to Medina and encouraged Meccans to attack Muslims. This happened before the exile of Nadir. Re the Qaynuqa, I have not read all the primary sources in detail so that I can say Peters is wrong nor would I be surprised to hear that they had contacts. What is certain in my personal view, however, is that these tribes showed significant enmity to Muhammad as Mark Cohen says. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, it is about your "personal view"? BUt it is not about mine.
 * Even then, it would still leave the Qaynuqa, making the generalising statements false. This is not about "contacts" but about "conniving with the enemy", something that the Qaynuqa were not accused of. Neither were the Nadir accused of this but merely of trying to kill Muhammad.
 * In any case, we do not need these details - if we needed them, we should cover everything in detail but seems off topic to me. Str1977 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think whatever word I say is my reflecting my personal view and whatever others say theirs. Even the early biographers simply wrote their own personal views.
 * I can not say whether Peters is right or wrong regarding Qaynuqa; the charge that eventually led to a break up and their exile did not include that, but it does not mean that Peters is necessarily wrong. Probably a statement to the effect that the Jewish tribes either secretly connived with Quraysh or tried to kill Muhammad, when stated as personal view of an scholar, would help.
 * The reason that I disagree with its removal alltogether is that, in my view, it is making the article biased on one side. --Be happy!! (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aminz, you are making a big mistake in this. I don't think Peters had in mind what you take out of it. He is scholar and knows perfectly well that not all these tribes were accused of treachery. And bias? The only bias I see is that two tribe innocent of treason before their expulsion are falsely labelled as traitors. That is indeed bias. Str1977 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Peters would mention this in a couple of his books without actually believing it. If you know reliable sources who maitain the view that the Jewish tribes were innocent we can add that as well; thus achieving neutrality.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know perfectly well that there is no basis for "each tribe was accused of treachery". So don't try to change the issue into a "the Jewish tribes were innocent". It is not about innocence but whether they were accused of treachery (not of any other misdeed, not even whether they actually were traitors. Only the removal of false claims can lead to factual accuracy and neutrality. Str1977 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently I have not stated myself clearly below in your statement that "You know perfectly well that there is no basis for "each tribe was accused of treachery"" - If treachery means violating their pacts, then my view is that they did so. If it refers to cooperation with Meccans, then I don't know if that happened at some time before their expulsion. I have bought Ibn Ishaq's biography and being too long I haven't read it in detail. There are also a good wealth of material aside the first three biographies that were compiled somewhat later; scholars are divided over their use of them. Watt for example rejects almost all of them while Madelung gives a good weight to them. In any case, what I know however certainly is that the statement appears in Peters's book because I saw it with my own eyes.--Be happy!! (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of Medina
The Constitution of Medina is completely relevant since it defines the allegiance between Muslims and the Jews of Medina. John Esposito says:

There were also other pacts: for example R. B. Serjeant presents a two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/ breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house." (The "Sunnah Jami'ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called Constitution of Medina", in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 41 (1978), p. 36) --Be happy!! (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the issue of whether the later chroniclers have a transmitted a faithful or embroidered version of the CoM, the interesting fact is that as far as the Jews were concerned, the CoM was imposed on them. Yathrib was originally Jewish; the Aws and Khazraj muscled in and lorded it over them; and the prima facie reason for Muhammad's presence in Medina was to arbitrate the disputes between the Aws and Khazraj.  He proceeded to lay down the law for everyone, and the Jews simply had to lump it, whether they liked it or not.  So, first Muhammad made the Jews "signatories" by fiat, and then he charged them with perfidy.  Way to go!  It all depends on how far you um, want, to go back in history, right? rudra (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A thought: On this article we have to constantly worry about whehter the discussing is straying from jizya. I agree with Relata when he/she says "I still don't see the point of devoting an entire paragraph to this. It adds nothing to a discussion of jizya."
 * But nothing bars us from writing on this at, say, Muhammad and the Jews. We can write a balanced, neutral paragraph(s) there, specifically under the heading "Jizya on Jews" or something like that. Then we can create a link here, telling the reader to go there for a full discussion. We will ofcourse still retain the letters etc. here.
 * I'm not pressing ahead with this idea, just throwing it out here. What do you guys think?Bless sins (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh joy. Another edit war:-) rudra (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudrasharman, the Jewish tribes were involved in the Medina affair and were allied to Aws or Khazraj (sometimes to opposite groups) before Muhammad was invited to reconcile people together. The reliability of the records can be discussed in their respective articles using reliable sources. I just wanted to establish their importance. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is with Bernard Lewis, who characterized the CoM as a unilateral proclamation. It bound parties without their prior consent. The apologist counter-argument, of course, is that the Jews were clients, not allies, but that's far from clear.  The CoM is being introduced here only to exculpate Muhammad.  But we aren't interested in whether he was right or wrong.  Only in what he did. rudra (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Muhammad was invited to Medina in order to reconcile the warring tribes together, and definitely he himself drafted the CoM. It said that Muslims and Jews are one community (ummah) except that each practices its own religion, but that they should be politically loyal to each other and support not each other's enemies. This was typical of Arabian pacts. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It turns out that Watt himself has a very interesting discussion of the CoM in Muhammad at Medina (p.225ff, following up on Wensinck's critique of Wellhausen). The basic point is that the received form of the CoM is a collation dating to a time after the elimination of the Qurayza; some but not all of it is older.  Dating it before Badr (which is basically to follow the position of the document in Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham) raises the serious issue of why none of Qaynuqa, Al-Nadir or Qurayza are mentioned.  There are other issues as well; suffice it to say the CoM antedating Badr is a dogmatic myth. Also, apropos of the quote from Watt above, he has been subtly, albeit predictably, misrepresented.  Arguing against the view that "Muhammad adopted a policy of clearing all Jews out of Medina just because they were Jews, and that he carried out this policy with ever-increasing severity." he says "In general it was not Muhammad's way to have definite policies of such a kind."   That is correct: he wasn't against Jews just because they were Jews.  He was against them because they were a serious political threat to his consolidation of power in a theocracy.  That is, Muhammad's policy was not against Jews per se, his policy was anti-anti-Islam: the Jews were the only anti-Islam faction around, and this was not going to change, therefore they had to be eliminated.  Watt says nothing to contradict this political calculation. rudra (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The date of the document we have as constitution of Medina is controversial (some believe it was after Muhammad entered Medina, others say it was drafted later) but Watt does not say that there were no such contract. Watt says: "It is virtually certain, however, that Muḥammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him ( al-Wāḳidī, 176); and something like this was probably implicit in his alliance with the Arab clans of Medina, since the Jewish clans were allied to one or other of the Arab clans. The Constitution of Medina as given by Ibn His̲h̲ām (341-4) does not mention Ḳurayẓa or al-Naḍīr or Ḳaynuḳāʿ by name; but its present form almost certainly dates from after the execution of the men of Ḳurayẓa, and these Jewish groups were probably mentioned in an earlier version."
 * Also, I quoted Esposito above were he mentions constitution of Medina clearly. The above quote from Watt stands on its own: According to Watt, Muhammad did not have a fixed and pre-determined policy against Jews as Gil says; he rather reacted with the changing situation. Lastly, I need to remind you of WP:CIVIL. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Watt thought it was "virtually certain" because he trusted Waqidi. Having cited Wensinck multiple times, it's more than a little surprising that he doesn't address at all Wensinck's critique of Waqidi's credibility on the CoM.  Wensinck's brief is that the earliest form of the CoM left the major Jewish groups out because it was a pact for the muhajirun and the ansar.  Watt has basically begged the question, offering a speculation to justify his trust. rudra (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is scholarly dispute on the date of the document we have as CoM; you say that Wensinck does not consider that reliable. Do you know anybody who rejects existence of such a pact in Medina, be it an earlier revision of CoM or other ones? Esposito is no less unqualified than many other people were are using and in this specific case, he is saying nothing different from what many other scholars says. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody, not even Wensinck, rejects existence. (How did you get that idea?) The issues are (a) what was its earliest form (i.e. which groups were covered) and (b) how did it change. At any rate, the basic point stands: the CoM has no relevance to this article except as a coatrack to exculpate Muhammad. rudra (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The underlying point is that there were pacts and that the political loyalty of the Jewish tribes were expected; they were not supposed to side with Muhammad's enemy. As an aside point: if quoting one scholar (Gil) is enough for addition of a passage even though others do not put it that way, then the same standards should be applied elsewhere.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're still missing the point why the CoM is irrelevant to this article: because CoM has no bearing on the institutions of dhimma and jizya. These came later, at a point when Jews were no longer a political threat in the Hijaz, some time between Khaybar and Tabuk, with Tabuk offering the earliest documentary evidence.  That is, dhimma and jizya emerged after Muhammad started expanding his sway imperialistically beyond Medina.  Exculpation is irrelevant. rudra (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem very certain about how these quite complex social institutions came into being. I don't find that kind of certainty in the works of the good historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read Wensinck, Watt, Rodinson, Donner, Lewis, and a few more (e.g. Khuri Hutti's translation of Baladhuri, Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq), it's pretty clear that dhimma emerged in the post-Khaybar period. Do you have a source which says that it was earlier (or significantly later)? rudra (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudra, but Moshe Gil says Muhammad had a certain policy of disposition and annihilation which he changed it later into dhimmi and jizya. He is thus drawing a connection between two periods; his description of the first period in my view is not doing justice to the issue. Apparently you have no trust in me, but for whatever it worths, I haven't seen any scholar discussing Muhammad's dealing with the Jewish tribes without mentioning the existence of pacts; in general such pacts played a fundamental role in the survival of a tribe and the political life of Arabia.
 * Unfortunately it is not possible in Wikipedia to "agree to disagree" otherwise I would have loved to close this discussion; anyways, tomorrow we can start fresh again. One thing before I forget: thank you for spending time getting access to sources and going through them; I learned something about Wensinck's views today, and in general makes the discussion more interesting. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While Gil's overall POV is clear, he does not say that the earlier policy was in fact antisemitic (in Watt's words "just because they were Jews"). In terms of the effects on Jews, however, "dispossession, etc." is an accurate description, especially in contrast to the typical arrangements under dhimma.  We can (and IMHO should) follow Donner and read all this in the context of Muhammad's consolidation of power.  Jews were a threat, so he got rid of them; once they were no longer a threat, a new policy emerged.  Everything was in relation to the political circumstances.  I don't see why this can't be stated in neutral language.  Why in particular is it necessary to justify Muhammad?  That's irrelevant. rudra (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be neat. I believe it stems from the sense of material appearing to "implicate" him thereby requiring justification to be added. In a nutshell that is the POV issue with the section.--Salikk (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another quote

 * (outdent) Rudrasharman, could you please explain why consolidation of power has to necessarily exclude mention of the constitution of Medina (or other similar documents); on the contrary they compliment each other. According to Jacob Neusner for example (God's Rule: The Politics of World Religions, pp.153-154, Georgetown University Press)- I apologize for the long quote but I think it expresses a point of view that I think should be mentioned alongside with Moshe Gil's POV.
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not Neusner. It's Esposito and a research assistant, who between the two of them couldn't manage to avoid howlers like "Muhammad initially presented himself as a prophetic reformer reestablishing the religion of Abraham" in the paragraph before your excerpt (read Watt p.204ff for the real scoop).  Or this: "The Jews of Medina, however, had political ties to the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, so they resisted Muhammad's overtures."  Please stop quoting Esposito. rudra (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Esposito is a joke. Popular author, yes.  Scholar, no. rudra (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Rudra, I've suggested before you not look at random partisan blogs for this sort of thing.
 * Esposito's a tenured professor. So is Kramer, I think, though at a less renowned university. In addition the piece from a near-universally panned book that you have linked to also says that Said and Eickelman are "jokes". Given that, I don't think you're likely to persuade anyone that that's sufficient to declare Esposito out of the mainstream. -- Relata refero (disp.) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not out of the mainstream, but his apologist tendencies are clear, and should be taken into account. When rewriting the "Jihad" section of Islam last year, for example, we found that his writings on the issue were a good deal different than what accepted scholarly opinion appeared to be (i.e. Encyc of Islam entry, to start). - Merzbow (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wherever his writing is outside scholarly opinion, it can be minimised or avoided. Its not as if his views on modernisation in particular aren't "unconventional", to quote one survey. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A scholar can have his own views about specific issue even if it is not orthodox. This is like saying if an scholar holds that Jesus was not God, he should be abandoned because it is not orthodox. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The assumption seems to be that a tenured professor is somehow automatically a scholar. Not by a long shot.  Esposito is not known for any serious scholarly work; he has visibility, and in all probability his tenure, only because of the books he has written -- for basically generalist audiences. (Which, I suppose, has also made him visible for partisan attacks ala Kramer.)  Even if we grant that he's good at doing that, that still doesn't make him a scholar or a technically excellent source (see the two howlers I quoted).  When there are so many good scholars in the field, reaching for an Esposito sound-bite is blatantly obvious POV-pushing. rudra (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course tenure doesn't make him a scholar in a meta-sense. It does make him a "scholar" for our purposes as long as he isn't blatantly fringe-y and writing within the mainstream. I'm not getting into debating what made three successive universities give him major positions, because that would frankly be utterly ridiculous. If you're only familiar with that fraction of his recent work that is for a general audience, that doesn't mean that there haven't been others; do recall that even aside from the "Myth or Reality?" type puff he has been reviewed a few dozen times in JSTOR journals alone. Blatant POV-pushing is reaching for someone whom we know is funded from outside the academy. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question about the CoM itself: if we take the traditional interpretation of the CoM seriously, then the Jews had complete religious freedom, but clearly Muhammad couldn't have afforded that, politically, once they rejected his prophethood. Consider also that Muhammad demanded  that the Qaynuqa convert -- how could he do that under the CoM?  In other words, the CoM (in its "universalist" manifestation) quickly became a dead letter.  It plays a role only in apologetics to justify Muhammad's charges of perfidy. But we aren't called to "explain" Muhammads's actions, only to describe them. rudra (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Consider also that Muhammad demanded that the Qaynuqa convert -- how could he do that under the CoM? " His initial preaching was not a "demand", but rather an invitation. A tribe/individual could convert (or not) without any negative consequences.
 * The demand to convert on the eve of Qaynuqa's expulsion was after they had violated the COM by instigating violence against Muslims. At that point a conversion would've been a change of tribes (i.e. to leave the Qaynuqa tribe, guilty of violating the COM, and enter the "super-tribe" of believers that the prophet was building). That way individuals could escape punishment by dissociating themselves from the guilty.Bless sins (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, your WP:OR is fascinating. (Invitation? Is that like when I put a gun to your head and invite you to hand me your wallet?)  The fact of the matter is that the success at Badr emboldened Muhammad to go after the weakest of the three Jewish tribes getting in his hair (the flimsiness of the excuses trumped up by later traditionalists only underscores this) and might have even had them killed (as Waqidi hinted) were it not for Ibn Ubayy's intercession. rudra (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Muhammad had no gun, as you very well know, nor did he bring any sword to the quarter to the Qaynuqa until Jewish-Muslim violence erupted (in which a Muslim and Jews were killed). Whether you consider the argument to be "flimsy" is just your opinion. (Infact any attempt to make a justification "strong" or "weak" is an opinion).Bless sins (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudrasharman, you have a specific interpretation of the sources which is okay to have (I have mine). I hope you however acknowledge that it is simply an opinion, nothing more.
 * Here is what Mark Cohen has to say
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not an issue of interpreting sources. It's an issue of representing them accurately.  Back to the subject, here is another quote:
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not an issue of interpreting sources. It's an issue of representing them accurately.  Back to the subject, here is another quote:


 * Look, no mention of CoM. Because it's irrelevant to dhimma and jizya, having become a dead letter long before, and in later days to be a crutch for polemics only. rudra (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia emulates sources in including what the sources have including, not by excluding what the sources have excluded. Infact, I can't set an obscure rule that a wikipedia entry shall contain only the information contained in an Encarta entry of the same topic (or a Britannica entry, or an Encyclopaedia of Islam entry). Thus, just because Mark Cohen doesn't mention the COM, doesn't mean we are under the obligation of mentioning it.
 * Having said that, Mark Cohen does mention the COM, and he does that alongside mentioning "jizya".
 * Bless sins (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again around this stupid circle: The CoM, if it's to be believed, guaranteed religious autonomy and equality of the Jews and the pagans (that, in fact, is why the later historians, starting with Waqidi and including Tabari, never quoted the CoM but only gave misleading summaries, because by their times this was fundamentally against Islamic dogma on the inherent inferiority of other religions.) That guarantee, assuming it existed, became a dead letter after Badr, gone, poof, finito.  Muhammad's actions against the Jews was in proportion to the (political) threat they represented.  The CoM had nothing to do with that (if anything, it would have been a nuisance), because it belonged to the time when Muhammad still had hopes of winning the Jews over to Islam.  Once it became clear that wouldn't happen, we get the new "religion of Abraham" dogma, change of qibla, etc. culminating in Badr, which for the first time gave genuine inspiration for the ascendancy of Islam and thus the political imperative to eliminate the Jews.  In short, (the universalism of) the CoM had to go, and lo, it did.  You do realize, I hope, that the section from which you've taken the Cohen quote is about the Pact of Umar, which is the real "foundation document" for dhimma and jizya? rudra (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again around this stupid circle: The CoM, if it's to be believed, guaranteed religious autonomy and equality of the Jews and the pagans (that, in fact, is why the later historians, starting with Waqidi and including Tabari, never quoted the CoM but only gave misleading summaries, because by their times this was fundamentally against Islamic dogma on the inherent inferiority of other religions.) That guarantee, assuming it existed, became a dead letter after Badr, gone, poof, finito.  Muhammad's actions against the Jews was in proportion to the (political) threat they represented.  The CoM had nothing to do with that (if anything, it would have been a nuisance), because it belonged to the time when Muhammad still had hopes of winning the Jews over to Islam.  Once it became clear that wouldn't happen, we get the new "religion of Abraham" dogma, change of qibla, etc. culminating in Badr, which for the first time gave genuine inspiration for the ascendancy of Islam and thus the political imperative to eliminate the Jews.  In short, (the universalism of) the CoM had to go, and lo, it did.  You do realize, I hope, that the section from which you've taken the Cohen quote is about the Pact of Umar, which is the real "foundation document" for dhimma and jizya? rudra (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rudrasharman, how are these quotes contradictory? They all belong to Cohen and present his own views. My understanding is that you present one quote to somehow show that it negates what the scholar said in another place. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction once you realize that, to the contrary of what apologists might hope for, Cohen does not make a big deal of the CoM. He treats it as a curiosum, which in fact it is, and no more. rudra (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your view. The above quotes indicates otherwise in my view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the quote specifically limits the Constitution of Medina to, surprise, Medina. It is for the rest of the Jewish tribes/populations that jizya is relevant. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are actually discussing it in the context of Medina here. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you want to go with the CoM but a) Jayjg is right, and b) the Esposito quote at the top of this section is not historically accurate, confusing cause and effect. Str1977 (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We know that the COM is only for Medina. But, in case you and Jayjg haven't realized, we're talking about Medina here. Secondly, wikipedia doesn't care about the truth, but verifiability (see WP:V in that regard). Thus, if you're challenging Esposito's reliability, that's one thing (and legitimate), but don't call something inaccurate based on your OR.Bless sins (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I though this article was about the Jizya. Str1977 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what it is supposed to be about. Unfortunately, some want to make it about other subjects entirely. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it became relevant the moment an earlier policy is referenced it becomes blindingly apparent that the prior policies must also be described, albeit succinctly, to give the sense of the evolving relations. It provides a timeline of developments leading to the Jizya: the CoM, and the ensuing tussles with the Jewish tribes because of it, the results of this tussle and the letters of security. A means that evolved out of policies adopted to deal with political circumstance encountered with the non-Muslim ummahs (nations) that became a part of the muslim ummah. They are all part of the narrative of the evolving policy, a part of which was the Jizya, the material proof of their subjugation. This can be done succintly by introducint the topic and wikilinking it away, allowing the article to still detail the Jizya--Salikk (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Given the sources, here is what I propose:
 * "After Jews responded with enmity and ridicule to Muhammad's offers of religious toleration and autonomy (in the Constitution of Medina), the Islamic prophet accused each of them of treachery, exiling the first two tribes, and killing the men of the third. This policy, however, was not the norm of treatment of non-Muslims, nor did it last; during the Tabuk campaign, Muhammad adopted a new policy, guaranteeing the Jewish and Christian communities safety (dhimma) in exchange for tribute (jizya) and agreement to not maintain military forces. To this end, Muhammad sent letters of protection to several of these towns. Gil sees a 'paradigm' in these treaties of letters of security that Muslim leaders would issue in the future to peoples under conquest.[1][2]"
 * "[1] Cohen, Mark. Under Crescent and Cross, Princeton University Press, p.55"
 * "[2] Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine: 634-1099, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 28-30."
 * The above gives a small summary of the pre-Medina activities, while focusing more on the period of jizya.Bless sins (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is best to avoid terms like religous toleration, policy of annihilation, etc even when scholars use them. Thus, instead of "religous toleration", we can say as Mark Cohen puts it:"he also hoped they would join the umma (community) of Islam while retaining their faith. In the "Constitution of Medina," his compact with the Arab and Jewish tribes of the oasis, Muhammad stipulated that "the Jews have their religion, and the Muslim have theirs."" --Be happy!! (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above suggestion is completely unacceptable: THe Jews responded with "enmity" and "ridicule" not to an offer of toleration and autonomy but to Muhammad's claims to be a prophet of God. As described above, Muhammad (not "the Prophet") did not accuse each of these tribes of treachery, certainly never the Qaynuqa. Str1977 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Str, it is best to stick to the reliable sources because wikipedia, as I understand it, aims to include all point of views. Nobody knows what happened 1400 years ago; but we have reliable sources in front of our eyes and can check the fact that a scholar is "saying" what is attributed to him. We can do this for as much scholars as we ca find. To be sure academic scholarship of Islam has no "overall" bias towards Islam; to the contrary historically many complains have been raised about bias against it.
 * You made a statement about Qaynuqa; I don't know what scholars who say this have exactly in mind, but here is my own view point: Regarding the charge of breaking pacts against Qaynuqa, one may note that a person was not physically protected unless he recieved protection from a tribe or tribes. Muhammad did not emigrate to Medina until a delegation from Medina pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically protect him as one of themselves. Most Jews of Medina however saw Muhammad as an imposter who was gaining followers everyday; one man's prophet is another man's imposter. In my view the Jewish tribes of Medina were not and could not be indifferent with respect to the growth of Islam before their eyes. In this inevitable clash the stakes were high of course. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article is about jizya, not the Constitution of Medina. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone agrees with me that there's no need for paragraphs on all this Medina/Tabuk stuff as it is irrelevant detail meant to introduce unnecessary pro- or anti- talking points. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, we just need to include what reliable sources have connected with jizya; that is, the fact that Muhammad modified his previous policy of "dispossession etc." in favor of jizya. I'm glad we finally both agree on this. 00:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Jizya the concept, of course, not jizya the word. That would be random coatracking. -- Relata refero (disp.) 05:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And since the reliable source Gil directly ties the concept of jizya to Muhammad's previous policy of "dispossession etc." of course that's the only thing we'll include. I'm amazed and pleased we are finding so many areas of agreement. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh we agree. Except Gil doesn't. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not with you perhaps. But certainly with me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah reliable sources blah blah. Only Esposito is none, in particular of not the scribble above. Str1977 (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Esposito is certainly reliable, though as Merzbow says, his views should be checked to see if they are isolated. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which makes him unreliable as we cannot rely on him for facts. Opinion yes, but not facts. Str1977 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's the case. Does anyone else agree? -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has any scholar of a similar standing accused Esposito of carelessness with facts, as opposed to disagreeing with his interpretations? If not, then he must be assumed to be reliable for facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars don't bother with Esposito, as his work consists of apologetics. The only ones to engage him, pro or con, are polemicists of various stripes (some of whom may be professors too, as tenured professors are by no means barred from polemics). rudra (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudra, as a reminder, he's been reviewed several dozen times in Jstor alone. So I don't think what you just said is true at all. -- Relata refero (disp.) 05:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have a JSTOR subscription, I don't know what these reviews are about. I'd guess they're on his various books.  One can see from the CV on his personal website that his work is basically on the (modern) politics of Islam. Scholarly work that would mark him as either a classicist or a historian?  Practically nil.  Conclusion: he's good for sound-bites only, in service of a predictable POV. rudra (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Esposito is a trained, academic scholar in the field of Islamic studies. The publication in question (that is, 'Islam: the Straight Path' - the source of the above quote) itself has received positive reviews from other academics (e.g. Gisela Webb, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 61, No. 2 (1993), pp. 359-361; Richard Martin, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1991), pp. 238-241). I don't see any clear reason why Esposito cannot be considered a reliable source.  ITAQALLAH   15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change that the above account is inaccurate.
 * CL? Str1977 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Esposito may very well say some things not conforming with standard account (as do all scholars, including Lewis), but I'm seeing Esposito described as inherently unreliable, which I think is erroneous.  ITAQALLAH   20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Esposito is more reliable than most sources on the topic, as he is a professor. However, that doesn't make him 100% reliable, and he is, like everyone else, prone to error. WP:V says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Thus, in my opinion it boils down to the publisher. If it is the Oxford University Press, or an academic journal, then those views are very reliable and scholarly (in fact, sources don't get more reliable than that). On the other hand, if it is his personal blog, then I would say it has marginal reliability.Bless sins (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone, professor or no, who comes up with ""Muhammad initially presented himself as a prophetic reformer reestablishing the religion of Abraham", or "The Jews of Medina, however, had political ties to the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, so they resisted Muhammad's overtures", is in serious need of homework. rudra (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should include all views once they pass the requirements: having credentials and having their work being published by a university press that practices the peer-review process.
 * Regarding the above two quotations, it might be my lack of knowledge but for example what is specifically wrong with the second quote. Thanks.--Be happy!! (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Esposito is saying that the Jews' "resistance" was due to their ties with the Quraysh. What about Muhammad's claim to prophethood, then (and what does the Qur'an berate the Jews for)?  Since Esposito has garbled that too, it isn't surprising that he's so clueless. rudra (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that this article is not about the relation of Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Medina, if we are going to include Gil's comparison which includes his own perspective on Muhammad's dealing with the Jewish tribes of Medina, we should inevitably provide alternative perspectives on the Medina period as well. I have no problem with inclusion of Gil's perspective alongside other scholar's perspective. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we should not included "alternative perspectives by various scholars" on things are not the topic of the article or only tangentially relevant.
 * As for Esposito, a quick look into your Saint Watt - whom you falsely label Montogomery Watt - (e.g. the articles in the EoI) should make clear that Esposito is not factual in the above quote. Str1977 (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Esposito is a distinguished scholar of Islamic history, culture and politics. He has a senior post in a major university and a long list of reputable academic publications. Please let us not waste any more time on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you just wasted 30 seconds of my time (and probably more of yours) by typing this ode to Esposito. "Wasted" because nobody wants to read, as the facts underlying are undisputed while judgement of the matter is not. Str1977 (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Saint Watt - whom you falsely label Montogomery Watt " Huh? Who is "Saint Watt"? A quick google search reveals no such personality. I know of Montgomery Watt, but you have clearly discounted him.
 * Secondly, Aminz, which book of Esposito are you quoting?Bless sins (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you think your time is wasted Str, but I maintain that this is a genuine academic and if you want to carry on arguing he is unreliable you will have to go back to WP:RSN. There is little more that can be added here. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aminz, I am clearly speaking about the man called "William Montgomery Watt" - that is christian names "William Montgomery" and family name "Watt" and hence he is "Watt" or "William Montgomery Watt" or "William M. Watt" but not " Montgomery Watt " - Saint Watt because hitherto you have always treated him with the utmost deference.
 * Itsme, I stated the problem with Esposito. I already told you that I will not waste my time repeating myself. Str1977 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you object to adding "Montgomery" (which is part of his name), but yourself freely add "Saint", which is neither part of his name, nor used by anyone except you on wikipedia.
 * In any case your objection against Esposito is simply that he is not reliable. You must however explain your rationale for such a conclusion (repeat if necessary, or give the diff of your post).Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can distinguish between the talk page and the article? Between a proper use of the name and my parody on a certain way to take Mr Watt's words as "the truth"?
 * My problem with Esposito here is that he is giving an inaccurate generalisation - inaccurate because scholars disagree (not with each other but with the generalising claim) when looking at the actual history in detail. Str1977 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I took the Esposito question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Contributors here may want to read the discussion there. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)