Talk:Jizya/Archive 6

50% rate
I have removed the dubious tag added in the lead after "to 50% of annual produce", after cite re-check. Remaining concerns if any should be explained on this talk page. RLoutfy (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @RLoutfy: The Dubious tag should have remained because the statement made is correctly sourced (at least for Tal Ben-Shahar), but seems unlikely to be historically accurate; there is uncertainty about the accuracy of the given source. The psychologist, Tal Ben-Shahar, makes the claim without citing any verifiable historical evidence. He is neither a historian nor was his work a historical publication to be reviewed thusly.  His views contradict all historical evidence to date.  Making his opinionated, non-historically backed, view sound like a fact is misleading.  I'm in the process of gathering primary and secondary historical evidence to prove the fringe nature of his claim and will likely upgrade the tag to disputed at that point.  Reeves.ca (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also currently in the process of verifying the second citation, but so far was unable to find the exact text of "The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman" available in the academic or public domain to be reviewed and scrutinized by his peers. I will likely have to purchase the book to, at the very least, verify the citation is in there as claimed before further qualifying it against available historical evidence. Reeves.ca (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @RLoutfy I've verified that the "The Jews of Arab Lands" by Norman A. Stillman does not contain the 50% claim made here. I'm removing that citation as evidence and marking Tal Ben-Shahar's citation as Dubious until historical evidence is provided. Update: As it turns out, some bot won't allow me to do that - so I'll rely on the good judgement of other editors to correct this. Thanks. Reeves.ca (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a confirmation, I also cite checked Stillman and found nothing regarding the 50% claim. The Stillman reference has now been removed, leaving only Tal Ben-Shahar's citation pending further qualification and/or supporting sources. (As an aside, it will stick this time, Reeves.ca. ClueBot is a genuine bot and misread what was happening because you'd removed a reference and got the template structure and parameters muddled a couple of times, hence producing a false positive as potential vandalism.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The p. 18, 2nd para of Norman Stillman book, has "...the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma (Ummah) one-half of their annual date harvest". The context is "protection money" and "jizya" as mentioned in the sentences and pages that follow. Please recheck. RLoutfy (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How in the world is 'one half of their annual date harvest' equivalent to 'one half of annual produce' (which is claimed in the article) ? --CounterTime (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let Iryna Harpy verify it first, then we can work on the wording. Another source, p. 101 of A Short History of Islam: From the Rise of Islam to the Fall of Baghdad, 571 A.D. to 1258 A.D. by Mazhar-ul-Haq (1977): "All other Jewish colonies in North Arabia, viz., Fadak, Wadi'l- jQara, Tayma, Ayala, etc., submitted on the same feudal terms of paying Jizya to the extent of half of their produce." RLoutfy (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another: p.90 of Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Yohanan Friedmann (2003), Cambridge University Press, in the last paragraph, "The expulsion from Medina is said to have been carried out by the Prophet; he intended to expel the Jews of Khaybar as well, but allowed them to remain there on the condition that they continue to work the land and yield half of the agricultural produce to the Muslims." That the context is Jizya is verifiable by reading the paragraphs before and after. RLoutfy (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear . I'm not talking about the wording. I'm talking about the claim that "Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have historically varied from being a fixed annual amount regardless of one's income, to 50% of annual produce" was supported by the the provided sources. (the claim is in bold) Your citation of Norman Stillman's book doesn't support that as it's talking about 50% of annual date harvest, which is different from 50% annual production (in everything). Furthermore can you please provide the full quote of the Mazhar-ul-Haq source, I can't find it for the current moment? Thanks. And finally the quotation of Yohanan doesn't support that either, as it is talking about agricultural production. --CounterTime (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq is already above. What would you suggest to Iryna Harpy as an alternate wording to consider for consensus, given the four cites with the four quotes? RLoutfy (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The 50% of produce was Kharaj tax, not Jizya. Please review the definition of Kharaj; a tax on agricultural land of conquered territories which become a tax applied to all landowners, including Muslims. It's important to note that Kharaj tax has no basis in the Qur'an or hadith - while Jizya does. Reeves.ca (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * do you have a WP:RS cite for "it was kharaj tax"? We cannot rely on your or my opinion, and wikipedia articles cannot be cited within wikipedia for WP:V. RLoutfy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here you go:

"Part of the musāqah (irrigation) bargain between Muhammad and the Jew of Khaybar involved a land tax, or kharāj. Professor Nayazee explain the meaning of "kharāj": Kharāj is of two types. The first is one of which the Imam imposes a fixes levy in accordance with what the land is able to bear. The second type is the taking of part of the produce as karāj. Both types are valid. It appears that the people of Khaybar were being subjected to the second type."

- Raj Bhala, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas, School of Law


 * This quote supports the general definitions of both karaj and jizya, and removes the confusion permeating the article as it currently stands. Reeves.ca (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked you to provide the full quote of Mazhar-ul-Haq with the context, so that we can understand it properly. --CounterTime (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another source that confirms that:
 * "Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983)."

- Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.


 * So even if a certain source uses the term 'jizya on their land', it would be kharaj 'despite the use of the term jizya which later came to refer to the poll tax.' --CounterTime (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca, See the Emon quote above on interchangeable nature of kharaj and jizya. This was common after Islamic armies invaded the lands of non-Muslim people, there are numerous cites that state the taxes on non-Muslims were just called jizya-o-kharaj or kharaj-o-jizya or equivalent. We must acknowledge this in this article, yet also mention instances when these were not the same. I would welcome a summary of the above Anver Emon statement, clarifying the interchangeability as well as difference between jizya and kharaj in this article's Associated taxes with jizya section. We will need to reword it to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues. I invite you to summarize this in the article. RLoutfy (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , a section clarifying the interchangeable usage of the words is a great suggestion as it is pivotal to understanding Jizya. But, we must be clear that while the terms were interchangeable, the concepts of Kharaj and Jizya are not interchangeable and were understood as different taxes with different applications.  Reeves.ca (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reeves.ca, The concepts are different, but historical records suggest they often were not differentiated in Spain, India, southeast Europe and parts of central Asia. But, yes, you are right, the important differences and interchangeability need to be properly explained in this article. The article has other issues too. We will fix this article and make it NPOV. RLoutfy (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, do you agree now with the established evidence that and I provided that the 50% rate isn't supported by all the sources you presented and that it should be now removed? --CounterTime (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you also add the full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq with the context for verifiability (WP:V) purposes? --CounterTime (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, NPOV does not imply removing content to push a POV or silence a POV, it only means stating all significant sides. The 50% jizya rate should remain per WP:BRD and because it is supported by multipe sources. For the full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq, see above. RLoutfy (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of the evidence provided above, and the constructive discussions we've had; can we at least agree that the 50% rate fits the definition of Kharaj verbatim and that it does not belong in the lede as a generalized statement about Jizya? Your citation can belong in the section (yet to be created) discussing the historical usage of the terms Jizya and Kharaj and their respective differences. Let's reach some common ground here folks. - unsigned comment by Reeves.ca


 * I agree that the lead needs fixing too, as Reeves.ca suggests. We must clarify two things - one, that the jizya and kharaj were sometimes used interchangeably but are different concepts, and that the 50% rate has been called a kharaj or alternatively jizya by different scholars. That would be NPOV and acceptable common ground. RLoutfy (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not NPOV...from the Explanation of the neutral point of view:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."


 * Placing this information as a general fact in the lede is confusing and misleading. Cherry picking the 50% example of the interchangeability of the term in the lede is not going to help the reader understand Jizya.  I do like the first part "that the jizya and kharaj terms were sometimes used interchangeably but are different concepts", I prefer a paraphrasing of "the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, [but] what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context" by Anver M. Emon (cited above by CounterTime). The 50% of produce (from the Jewish tribe of Khaybar) example can go in the section regarding the usage of the two words/terms we've allude to before (the one we have yet to create). Are we in agreement? Reeves.ca (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV doesn't mean citing examples of kharaj and putting them in the article as do they are examples of jizya. Furthermore all the citations you stated talk about kharaj and not jizya, so no confirmation can be based on them. And finally you didn't provide a full quotation of Mazhar-ul-Haq with the context, which is what I demanded. Could you please do it? CounterTime (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

,, Okay, so we remove the 50% rate claim now in the light of the above cluster of evidence, right? --CounterTime (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made my case and RLoutfy has agreed that these were clearly different concepts. We also agreed that we need a clarification section for the terms (Kharaj and Jizya)...
 * However, we have not agreed yet on the next steps. So, to summarize, here's what I'm proposing: (1) like you said, we edit-out the 50% example from the lede (misleading as discussed before), (2) we then add a new section under Etymology with its own sub-heading "ex: Historical Usage the Terms Kharaj & Jizya" or something along those lines, (3) we use the references above to explain the historical usage of the terms, and finally (4) we use the 50% of produce tax on the Jews of Khaybar as an example/illustration.
 * Any objections to this proposal? Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like your proposals #2, #3 and #4. For lead, I suggest that we clarify, not suppress information. How about,
 * Current: Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have historically varied from being a fixed annual amount regardless of one's income,[14] to 50% of their produce.[15][16][17]
 * Proposed: Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have in theory, and often in practice, been a fixed annual amount;[14a][14b] however, in some instances, where the jizya and kharaj was implemented as an interchangeable tax on non-Muslims, the rate was a portion of their produce, such as 50%.[15a][16a][17a]

I suggest this because there are numerous examples over Islamic history in Spain, Yemen, India, and Sahel where Jizya-o-Kharaj was considered the same as an implemented practice (though not in theory). This article should present not just theory of Jizya, but its implementation from both non-Muslim perspective and Muslim perspective. I am open to and welcome alternate wording that you feel would be more accurate, and would make this article more encyclopedically useful. Please go ahead and edit the article for #2, #3 and #4. Your edits to the main article, in this matter, will also help us formulate a consensus for the lead. RLoutfy (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback; I'll implement points 2, 3 and 4. However, would you kindly provide verifiable citations for the claim above? I need to confirm that the land tax (Kharaj - not mandated in the Quran) did indeed superseded the poll-tax (Jizya - mandated in the Quran) in those regions. Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am delighted that you will implement those changes. Supersede isn't the right word, because al-kharaj was simply called al-jizya in these regions, through long stretches of their Islamic history. For instance, refer to p. 641 in Johari and Ibrahim (2010), The Dynamism In The Implementation Of al-Kharaj During The Islamic Rule, Shariah Journal, 18(3); and refer to pp. 283-285, Peter Jackson (2003), The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History, Cambridge University Press, to start with. Jackson remarks that there was a lack of clarity, and Jizya was sometimes implemented on non-Muslims in the form of several kinds (all called Jizya, one of which was theoretically Kharaj). RLoutfy (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The references you provided support the different, concrete (non-theoretical) application between Kharaj and Jizya - even in light of the mixed usage of the terms. I'll quote from the first publication (emphasis mine): "'Taxation systems that had been implemented in Islamic countries were land tax (al-kharaj), protection tax (sulh al-jizyah), poll tax (jizyah al-ru’us) and commerce tax (al-‘usyr). Al-Kharaj represents a specific percentage of income obtained from land or property and it includes land obtained from war or by peaceful means. Al-Kharaj was implemented early in the Islamic rule in Khaibar when the Jews requested for the land that Muslims had conquered to remain as theirs because they were very good farmers. The prophet p.b.u.h. consented to the request on condition that they surrender half the revenue obtained from the land as tax al-kharaj; in accordance with the al-muzara’ah principle.' - p.631 Johari and Ibrahim (2010), The Dynamism In The Implementation Of al-Kharaj During The Islamic Rule, Shariah Journal, 18(3)"
 * With all the evidence so far provided, the 50% Jizya tax argument is looking tenuous. For discussion's sake: Could you please provide the exact citation relevant to the 50% land tax as Jizya? Because the consensus from all cited sources (including the latest ones you've provided) do not support the claim. Thanks again, Reeves.ca (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You asked for "would you kindly provide verifiable citations for the claim above? I need to confirm that the land tax (Kharaj - not mandated in the Quran) did indeed superseded the poll-tax (Jizya - mandated in the Quran) in those regions." In response, I referred to p. 641. Now you are citing p. 631, which is good, but that is not what you asked for. I thought you wanted to confirm that Kharaj and jizya terms were used interchangeably. On p. 641 of Johari and Ibrahim, you read, "Even the term al-jizyah and al-kharāj are used interchangeably in hadiths and throughout the history of Islam". You will find a similar discussion on pp. 283-285 of Jackson. As third cite, refer to p. 101 of A Short History of Islam: From the Rise of Islam to the Fall of Baghdad, 571 A.D. to 1258 A.D. by Mazhar-ul-Haq (1977): "All other Jewish colonies in North Arabia, viz., Fadak, Wadi'l- jQara, Tayma, Ayala, etc., submitted on the same feudal terms of paying Jizya to the extent of half of their produce." I have provided others. For WP:NPOV, both sides need to be summarized - that jizya and kharaj are theoretically different, and that sometimes jizya and kharaj were interchangeable terms and taxation rates in Islamic history. Refer to Peter Jackson, for instance, for specifics. If you want, I will provide more cites. This is widely accepted, and needs to be properly discussed in this article. RLoutfy (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To avoid making assumptions, I have read the entirety of p.641 and still could not find the evidence - so I proceeded to read the entire chapter for context. What I quoted above, was the author's explanation of the terms at the beginning of the chapter that you cited - thus further clarifying the ambiguity of the terms. I don't disagree that the clarification about the context of the terms needs to be discussed in the article for WP:NPOV; in fact, it was my recommendation to have a dedicated section specifically for that purpose. Every citation you provide supports the discussion about context of the terms. You have already agree these are different concepts with different applications. We have multiple citations clarifying that the land tax on the Jews of Khaybar was understood as Kharaj (not Jizya) - which is still the originally contested source of the 50% tax as it currently stands in the lede. There were many other citations that also clarified the terms are to be understood from context.

It seems like the discussion is going in circles. Again, I'll reference WP:NPOV under Explanation of the neutral point of view:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

What we have here is a seriously contested assertion (claiming the 50% rate as Jizya). The 50% rate is presented as a direct statement even with all the supporting evidence pointing to the contrary. I propose we remove this seriously contested claim from the lede as it is misleading.

It seems that we might be at an impasse here; How do you recommend we proceed? Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You still didn't provide the full context quote of the Mazhar-ul-Haq source. I'm still waiting. CounterTime (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * CounterTime: Welcome to wikipedia. We need to respect WP:COPYVIO policy of wikipedia. I have already provided the quote, which is covered by fair use, but large sections of a copyrighted publication cannot be posted in an article or the talk pages of wikipedia. You should get the publication and read it to get the context. RLoutfy (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In light of the new kharaj and jizya section and cites recently added, what do you think of the following,
 * Proposal for summary in the lead: Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have in theory, and often in practice, been a fixed annual amount;[cite1][cite2] however, in some instances, where the jizya and kharaj was an interchangeable term on non-Muslim individuals or communities, the annual tribute rate imposed on them was a significant portion of their produce.[cite3][cite4]
 * I welcome alternate wording that would be a better summary in the lead. Since there is some disagreement between sources on this subject, for WP:NPOV, see the suggestion of editor Anthony Appleyard here where he suggests, "Some say XXXX; some say YYYY; there is a long-standing contradiction here." type language. RLoutfy (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYVIO isn't a reason to refuse to cooperate so that one member checks the WP:V verifiability of a certain source. 10:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * As and I showed, a certain rate on produce is kharaj, and not jizya. Even if they were used interchangeably, or if it was referred to as "jizya on their land". So the better wording would be "Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have been a fixed annual amount" Period. 10:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Could you please check for neutrality this edit of where he tries to make some sort of POV pushing to further the claim that only a few studies question the 'synonymous usage of jizya and kharaj'. Thanks. 11:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. That addition has been reverted.

Thank you for reviewing the disambiguation section, I like the edits you've made on this section so far. However, the latest addition is just repetition of a view already illustrated (and stated in the first sentence of this section and throughout the article). The two citations for the same point of view gives undue weight to that POV. Each point of view was illustrated in the section and that is sufficient. Reeves.ca (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest we add both views, as that would be the NPOV style. Juan Campo states, "it was once thought that the distinction between the land tax and poll tax was clear cut and absolute; however, numerous historical studies have shown conclusively that, throughout Islamic history, the terms kharaj and jizya were used interchangeably". In contrast, scholars such as AAAA and BBBB state that these terms were not used interchangeably.[Reeves.ca-Reference-1][Reeves.ca-Reference-2] RLoutfy (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Our common goal is to make the article more readable; it would be ironic if the disambiguation section is more confusing. Your proposal does little to add clarity and continues a pattern of repetition found in the article - we can do better.
 * That said, we should refocus our effort on the 50% in the lede which makes the contentious point of view sounds like a matter of fact. My proposal: remove the produce reference from the lede as we've established its contentious nature. As it stands, it misleads the reader into a POV that confuses a land-tax (Kharaj - a produce tax which later applied to both Muslims and non-Muslims) with a poll-tax (Jizya - a tax which exclusively applied to non-Muslims under Muslim rule). Reeves.ca (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's NPOV policy page reads "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias.". It would help if you provided a cite that explicitly refutes Campo and Ziauddin Ahmed. RLoutfy (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A classical strawman argument. This is not about the terms being used, we know they were used.  This is about the Quranic mandated tax called Jizya. Anver Emon's Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford University Press) clarified the confusion (pasted below again for your convenience).  The focus here is about that contested 50% produce tax claim that has already been refuted as Jizya (read the above discussion) and should be redacted from the lede.  let's not go in circles again.  The word Kharaj and Jizya both mean tax, no one debates that.  However, their nature is inferred from the context:
 * "Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983)."

- Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.


 * There is enough evidence to demonstrate that the claim made in the lede is not universal, but also considered an unpopular view. The citation cannot be postulated as a fact and, again, I recommend its removal from the lede. Reeves.ca (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the current dispute? Thanks in advance. 11:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute For Islamic Thought and NOENG
I have reversed your recent edits. Who is the author of The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute For Islamic Thought and is this peer reviewed? Please do not remove previous content till we have consensus, per WP:BRD. Please give reasons and peer reviewed cites that what you added is mainstream view. For non-English sources, you must provide quotes and complete translation per WP:NOENG. RLoutfy (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. It seems that you have a problem with that source, so why did you also removed my Wael. B. Hallaq source and other edits I made, just tell me why?
 * 2. The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought is an international Islamic non-governmental, independent institute in Amman, Jordan. Its Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre is an independent research entity affiliated with the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. I don't know the authors of that particular short book.
 * 3. You state "that what you added is mainstream view." Let me remind you that THIS IS NOT A FORUM. Talk pages exists for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance.  We're not discussing whether X is the mainstream opinion, we're trying to ameliorate the encyclopedia by improving the article. One of the ways to improving it is adding references. I don't see why, in one instance, you added as a reference a book from a psychologist (Tal Ben-Shahar (2002)), while you dismissed this reference to an institute for Islamic thought. As such, I will re-add those references, and if you have anything against them point it in the talk page, and add the [dubious - discuss] tag, instead of deleting content.
 * 4. As for your remarks on peer review, note that it's a book, not a research paper published in a journal.
 * 5. The ref. I added only supports the quotations of Al-Nawawi and Ibn Qudamah that I gave, in that it provided a translation for them, as well as some other things. You aren't supposed to, based on your prejudice, to dismiss all of these things just because it doesn't suit your opinion.
 * 6. The translation was given by the "Royal Aal Al-Bayt ...etc", which I have added as a reference directly besides the quotes that we're made. This is completely in respect of WP:NOENG policies.
 * , could you please try to solve this dispute? Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What specific content is in dispute? Reeves.ca (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. The dispute is about a specific revert of some of my edits, by the user, and more specifically about his rejection of the "The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute For Islamic Thought" source.
 * He deleted for instance this paragraph:
 * 11:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * 11:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * 11:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I partially agree with RLoutfy, the content is self published, so you'll need to find a better source if you wish to include the above content. That said, I disagree with the complete revert by RLoutfy to all the changes you've made.

While BRD is an optional method for reaching consensus, it is not a policy or an excuse for indiscriminate sweeping reverts. BRD advises that "Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." The removal of the Cambridge University Press sourced content does indicate that more care should be used. Kindly only remove the specific content you have issue with. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While the source may be self-published, some self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources. Especially this one coming from the The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute For Islamic Thought, which also authors things like the http://themuslim500.com/aboutus
 * So I believe it is perfectly acceptable. 23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * My apologies! I was under the impression that self-published work was automatically invalid, but that does not seem to be the case. Thanks for the clarification.
 * , Actually, it isn't a self-published work, the author is Dr. Caner Dagli, an associate professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.
 * To end up this problem, I've changed the ref to : "H.R.H. Prince Ghazi Muhammad, Ibrahim Kalin and Mohammad Hashim Kamali (2013), War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad, pp.82-3. The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8."
 * 12:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

CounterTime, the lead needs to be a summary of the main article. Just like you are insisting on "certain" in the lead to clarify that Jizya was not collected from non-Muslim children below age 9 etc, we cannot include a blanket statement "If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything", because that is not what many scholars and main article is stating. The cites you provide state it to be Ibn Qayyim view, so I have moved that sentence from lead to main article. We cannot generalize Abu Yusuf's view to apply to all fiqhs. I checked Hallaq book and did not find support for what you claim. The Hallaq book on p. 332 simply states that poor were exempt, but this is already mentioned in second line of the first paragraph of the lead. No repetition necessary. RLoutfy (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "because that is not what many scholars and main article is stating." WHAT????! Are you serious? All the source state that poors were exempt, hence if anyone doesn't have the financial capacity to pay they wouldn't, as is detailed in the exemptions subsections.
 * Yes, so why did you delete all the rest?
 * Also why did you delete the "In most cases, the jizya taken was less than the 2.5% Zakat, or alms, paid by Muslims, which the dhimmis were not required to pay since the zakat is a religious requirement for Muslims only. " stating that "remove failed verification, the comparison is not there on pp. 82-83", guess what? it's there, here's the quote:
 * So why did you make such a lie? Just why?
 * 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * For the other one you may think that the waelhallaq source doesn't support it, however I provided another one and it is: " If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything. " 11:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * The talk page is filled with issues regarding your edits and you chose to be disruptive and blanket revert without even reaching any sort of agreement let alone consensus? And yet you still choose to ignore all the objections made (such as the Qur'an section dispute) and continue to post-pone things while at the same time removing my content? This is really sad, I feel very unwelcomed from your part, it is as do you don't want to cooperate. 16:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Edit vandalism per RLoutfy.
Dear @RLoutfy. Why did you inexplicably revert my edits?

@Iryna Harpy. I first want to thank your efforts at ameliorating this article. You stated that my latest edit in this article "... did not appear to be constructive". Could you please show how isn't constructive? Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is unconstructive because it is based on cites that are non-RS and very old (see WP:HISTRS), relies on you interpreting primary sources and wrongly if I may add (I can read Persian and Arabic and your translations are simply wrong and don't say what you claim they say). You must not edit war with Iryna Harpy and I. You must provide recent reliable secondary cites. RLoutfy (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to be constructive, much appreciated. Please show me the cites that are very old, (e.g. how in the world is the Abdel Haleem scholarly article old?) and show me how I'm interpreting my sources wrongly, I too can read arabic, for instance when I quoted Al-Qurtubi: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني"
 * Where I wrote: "there is a consensus amongst scholars that jizya ... isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old."" --CounterTime (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Arnold in your edit here is very old, from 1913. And that view by some historical Islamic scholars "isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old" was already in the article, with cites from recent scholars. RLoutfy (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the fifth time, Arnold is considered to be quiet reliable despite being old. "And that view by some historical Islamic scholars "isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old" was already in the article, with cites from recent scholars." But it doesn't mention that there is a consensus amongst scholars that it isn't taken from ...etc... Anyway going to sleep now, we'll continue the discussion later.--CounterTime (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because you think 1913 cite is okay, doesn't mean it is, or that we must ignore WP:HISTRS. If the view of Arnold continues to be current, you should have no problem finding recent scholarship stating the same. RLoutfy (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)




 * 1) First, can you show how I mistranslated and distorted al-Qurtubi's statements: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني" Where I wrote: "there is a consensus amongst scholars that jizya ... isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old.""??
 * 2) Second, Arnold is a very famous orientalist, he is known as the author and co-founder of important institutions or undertakings in Islamic studies such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the School of Oriental [and African] Studies. His book 'The Preaching of Islam' despite being old, is considered reliable, I think instead of passively displaying a bias against Arnold, you should instead work to improve this article, so as to make this Encyclopedia better.
 * 3) Third, you state "If the view of Arnold continues to be current, you should have no problem finding recent scholarship stating the same." However ALL views should be represented, so to respect WP:NPOV, please read it! --CounterTime (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime, The original cannot be translated as "consensus amongst scholars...", and in other parts, you have cherry picked words to make the translation to fit your POV. For example, why not translate "جماجم" in there? Do you know what the translation for "جماجم" is? In other sections, you have added primary sources and your translations are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, you need to provide a source that does the translation and interpretation. 100 year old cite is unacceptable. See WP:HISTRS. Please feel free to take this to WP:DRN. RLoutfy (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that, while I have not had time to do any thorough research, I did check into Arnold's credentials via Google Scholar. The last time he was cited by any author was approximately 1936, and only a handful of times in the 20th century full stop. This indicates that the credibility and value of the author's knowledge on the subject of Orientalism (in itself a questionable term) is very much an historic one. Please stop pushing the bounds of good sourcing for an encyclopaedic article in the 21st century, CounterTime. Being verifiable does not automatically reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @RLoutfy Why cannot it be translated as so? "وهذا إجماع من العلماء" is pretty clear to anyone with some minimal knowledge in arabic, it means there's a "consensus amongst scholars"... I don't see why you deny that. *** "you have added primary sources and your translations are wrong" Could you please show me where my translations are exactly wrong? *** "100 year old cite is unacceptable" you want it or not, but Arnold is considered reliable despite being old, as I explained many times here, also see talk page on Q.2:256. -unsigned comment by User:CounterTime
 * @IrynaHarpy You need to see what scholars have said about his book, instead of looking at particular cites. Your conclusion would dramatically change. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @IrynaHarpy Actually, after I made a google scholar search myself, I found out that there are actually more than 463 cites for one edition of the book. --CounterTime (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, CounterTime, I'm in agreement with you as to his contemporary significance per a number of scholars such as Dr Haifaa Jawad (here) and Reza Shah-Kazemi (here). Although his work isn't without its critics (i.e., here), and much is said about 'Orientalism' as being an anachronistic, Victorian understanding of Islam, having perused a few academic works (it's the quality of the scholars citing him, not the quantity), it appears that the mainstream view is that "The Preaching of Islam" is still considered to be a seminal work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The word العلماء is ale'ulama, which can be translated as know all, expert, scholar, authority depending on the context, but in this text the reference is to "Islamic". As I mentioned above already, I am concerned about you cherrypicking and find your translations inappropriate. This talk page is not a forum. There are numerous recent English publications on Jizya, by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, and this article should rely on them, and their scholarly translations. RLoutfy (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this is, indeed, the crux of the matter. Whether Arnold is still considered to be a viable source or not isn't the issue. What is at issue is that, since early September, this article has exploded into long, convoluted and fragmented piece that no reader just wanting to familiarise themselves with what 'jizya' means would want to plough through... nor would they come out feeling much the wiser for having read it. Trying to pile in too much detail leads to confusion as to what is salient and what is not. I feel that some serious redaction is required in order to focus on the most relevant content. Tracts of "In Number 754899 so and so said this" is not helpful: it's a hindrance (in fact, with no offence intended, it's quite boring and not particularly edifying). Readers (like myself) can't see the forest for the trees. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you didn't show that my translation is wrong, 'ulama in this context -as said by the Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi- is Islamic scholars, hence your attack on me that my translation is POV and flawed doesn't stand, and I'm waiting for explanation concerning that. --CounterTime (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with you, but you must understand the situation, RLoutfy is actually doing his best to mess things up and to minimize the time we spend on editing the article by bringing void issues such as: "your translation is flawed" (when it isn't) see above. He needs to cooperate and abandon his POV, just see how many POV accusations he got from other users: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)....etc --CounterTime (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We do need to trim out text tracts such as "In Number 754899 so and so said this" to improve this article. I will try to dedicate some time to this article in the coming days.

Personal attacks are not okay either by you as you did here, or by those you seem to find comfort in. On the quote, will you accept including a "complete" translation by an uninvolved wiki editor, in this article, and holding off including that content till such a third party translation appears, as suggested by Iryna Harpy? RLoutfy (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * None of those are personal attacks. Concerning translations I'll do that after you explain to me how you could judge my translations as 'flawed', 'POV', ...etc when you can't even write arabic correctly. --CounterTime (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You still didn't answer this comment of mine: Well you didn't show that my translation is wrong, 'ulama in this context -as said by the Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi- is Islamic scholars, hence your attack on me that my translation is POV and flawed doesn't stand, and I'm waiting for explanation concerning that. --CounterTime (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again CounterTime, this is not a forum. I have already explained what needed to be. Don't wait for further forum style explanations from me, as it will only feed a forum like discussion by you and that is not what this talk page is for. You can provide a complete translation if you feel like, but we will rely on uninvolved third party translations. I ask again, "will you accept including a "complete" translation by an uninvolved experienced wiki editor, in this article, and holding off including that content till such a third party translation appears, as suggested by Iryna Harpy"? RLoutfy (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We're talking about this article, anything that is related to it can be included in the talk page. Furthermore, I do accept that, only and only after you explain to me how you could judge my translations as 'flawed', 'POV', ...etc when you can't even write arabic correctly. --CounterTime (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, Your "I am waiting for explanation concerning that" or diagnosing your original research based on non-English publications is not same as improving this article by summarizing secondary and tertiary English publications. Wikipedia admin NeilN and another editor Iryna Harpy have both suggested the use of a neutral third party translator for a complete translation, a suggestion I accept, do you? You must stop this focus on me with your personal attacks across Islam-related articles on this talk page, and instead focus on cooperating to improve this article. RLoutfy (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Because of you much time has been wasted in meaningless disputes concerning "wrong translations", when further analysis shows that you can't even write arabic correctly. So why are you making us waste time by claiming that my translations are wrong when you can't even write arabic properly? I need some explanation. --CounterTime (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , , , , Can you please confirm or not that وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية can be translated as "there is a consensus amongst scholars that jizya ..." ? Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CounterTime: Salaam, the translation is correct. Btw, "و" should be translated as "and". Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct.GreyShark (dibra) 08:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear and, thank you so much for confirming the translation. Cheers! --CounterTime (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

,, others, it would help if you can provide a complete translation of the following: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني". If you have access to the source, it would help if you can confirm that the context is "Islamic scholars". RLoutfy (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, why did you think that my translation was flawed, POV, and wrong? Second, they already confirmed that the context is Islamic scholars, or just scholars per al-Qurtubi's original wording "...من العلماء...". --CounterTime (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, can you provide your own translation? --CounterTime (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. "قال علماؤنا" literally means "our scholars said" which from the context here means "Islamic scholars said." Reeves.ca (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reeves.ca, Thank you. It would help if you translated this and few other quotes in the article in their entirety. RLoutfy (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've placed the original text along with my translation and notes: قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني "'Our scholars have said: that which the Koran has indicated is that the tribute is taken from fighters ... and there is a consensus amongst scholars that the tribute be only placed on the heads of free men who have reached puberty, who are fighting with the exclusion of women and children and slaves and the crazy insane and the dying old man.'" A tried to be as literally when possible, but here are a few clarification notes: I hope this helps somehow. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "علماؤنا" literally means "our scholars", but in this context means "our Islamic scholars"
 * "العلماء" literally means "The scholars", again from the context, means "the islamic scholars"
 * "جماجم" literally translates to "skulls", but from the context it means "heads"
 * "دون" is an article of negation, which in this context means "with the exclusion of"
 * "المغلوبين على عقولهم" literally translates to "defeated on their minds", which means here "insane"


 * Excellent. I will now incorporate this translation. RLoutfy (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend having more people weigh in on the translation as I'm not a translator by profession. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reeves.ca, can you also translate the following, Quote2: "ولا جزية على شيخ فان ولا زمن ولا أعمى ولا مريض لا يرجى برؤه، بل قد أيس من صحته، وإن كانوا موسرين: وهذا مذهب أحمد وأصحابه، وأبي حنيفة، ومالك، والشافعي في أحد أمواله، لأن هؤلاء لا يقتلون ولا يقاتلون، فلا تجب عليهم الجزية كالنساء والذرية." Quote3: "ولا جزية على صبي ولا امرأة ولا مجنون: هذا مذهب الأئمة الأربعة وأتباعهم. قال ابن المنذر: ولا أعلم عن غيرهم خلافهم. وقال أبو محمد ابن قدامة في " المغنى " : (لا نعلم بين أهل العلم خلافا في هذا " RLoutfy (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the translation I have offered in the article: ""(1) And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough. (what follows isn't in the article) And this is the madhab (lit. way) of Ahmad and his followers, and Abu Hanifa, and Malik, and al-Shafi'i in some accounts, since those aren't fought and don't fight, hence jizya isn't required on them such as the women and the kids. (2) There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue." Could you please provide your very own translation? CounterTime (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * CounterTime, your translations for Quote2 and Quote3 above are reasonably close. any fine tuning? If not, one of us must insert it into the cite to satisfy WP:NOENG. RLoutfy (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yet you stated earlier "I disagree with the translation provided," referring to the Ibn Qayyim source, and now you're stating that same translation is "reasonably close"?
 * 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

The translation provided by is very good. However, if we were to nitpick, we could make a minor adjustment to the second quote: The difference is not specifically significant, but you asked for fine tuning so I obliged. Otherwise, it looks good. Cheerios, Reeves.ca (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Original text: "هذا مذهب الأئمة الأربعة وأتباعهم"
 * Provided translation: "This is the view of the four imams"
 * Adjusted translation: "This is the view of the four imams and their followers"

Arnold as source
I have removed Arnold is many sections, but not all, per NeilN comment, "Older sources can be used unless superseded by modern scholarship". The repetition of Arnold's statement of "exemption of Christians who served in Muslim army" is not necessary. Stating it once is enough. I will look into more recent scholarship for those sections that still have Arnold and consider if it should be replaced or just the second cite added and Arnold retained. RLoutfy (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't do that, see what stated
 * Please bring back the Arnold sources. --CounterTime (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a few sources on my desk that disagree or are critical of Arnold. For NPOV, I need to consider these. I also need to reconsider the cites Iryna Harpy identified. RLoutfy (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because you have one or two sources that disagree of Arnold doesn't mean that you should remove citations and quotations from his monumental work The Preaching of Islam. For WP:NPOV you need to add both. --CounterTime (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you really see Arnold as a relevant to Rationale section of this article? And isn't mentioning Arnold summary about "tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe" exemption, currently in the etymology/meaning section, enough? Why repeat? RLoutfy (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at it in context now, and I'd agree that Arnold is redundant for that section. As has already been discussed, while his work may be regarded as a seminal work by some academics, it is not regarded as such universally amongst contemporary scholars. I believe that was made clear a couple of months ago. The preference should be to use more contemporary analysis in order to do justice to the section in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I invite you to check the "Spread of Islam" article, look how many times Arnold is cited. Thanks in advance. 11:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * The user thinks that Arnold's The Preaching of Islam is a bad out-dated source and that it shouldn't be user, what do you think about that?
 * 09:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I'd be wary of citing it here on its own being an old reference. While I'm aware that the specific part you wish to include has not been contested and therefore remains true, I think it would be better to use more recent sources that affirm Arnold's position. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Arnold's work is still THE reference in what concerns oriental studies of the spread of Islam. D'ailleurs, a look at the Spread of Islam article will quickly show you how many times it was cited.
 * 11:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Removal of total revenue numbers
The passages drawing on the paper about total tax revenues of the first three caliphates contained serious WP:SYNTHESIS. I started reading the paper to correct it when I was alerted by the bad English to the fact that the journal doesn't even have a website. It's a (defunct?) vanity press trying to pass for a similarly titled francophone journal, as the warning on the website of the latter explains. Eperoton (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of 50% of produce as jizya rate
I've removed two non-reliable sources given for this assertion. As far as I can tell, this number is based solely on the agreement made by Muhammad with some Jewish tribes of the Medina area. I've removed this phrase as a WP:SYNTHESIS of the remaining RS. I found another RS discussing this episode, The Jews of Arab lands by Norman A. Stillman, who writes:

In return for their personal safety and the right to retain their homes and property, the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma one-half of their annual date harvest. The terms were burdensome, but not unusually harsh. [...] The settlement made with the Jews of Khaybar was repeated with those of Fadak and the oases of the Wadi 'l-Qura. [...] Oasis dwellers customarily paid [...] "protection money" in the form of a share of their produce to the neighboring Bedouin. As Salo Baron has noted, "this practice [...] was freely indulged in also by the great Byzantine and Persian empires to secure peace from many unruly neighboring tribes." (p. 16).

Neither source refers to this payment as jizya, kharaj, or any other sort of Islamic taxation. Eperoton (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was also discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jizya#50.25_rate
 * I think now there's a consensus and this issue shouldn't be brought up again.
 * 17:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)