Talk:Jizya

Imposition vs. derived

The sura from which the word jizyah is derived is Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:

viz.

The imposition of jizyah is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:

Yuber, I think our principal concern with that passage is where the 'imposition' (a term I don't find controversial) of the tax is mandated from, not where the 'word' is 'derived' from. As such, I find Jayjg's language clearer. You obviously disagree, so I'm interested to learn why. Thanks. El_C 06:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it strange that zakat is mentioned as "required" of Muslims while jizyah is "imposed" on non-muslims. BOTH taxes were mandatory, so one term should be used. Jayjg and Klonimus have been pushing this POV.Yuber^(talk) 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, imposition is accurate, and it is clearly mandated by the Qur'an; I have no idea what zakat has to do with this clear point.

It should be evident that non-Muslims were exempt from zakat. In the description of the zakat, you can either use imposition or required, but not both. As for where the word is derived from, it is a very simple idea. The sura does not call for a monetary tax. However, later the name was applied to a monetary tax. Once again, the name was changed to distance it from the verse because the Caliph Umar did not want people to think it had anything to do with religion. With Jayjg's POV version he is providing original research to the claim that it the specific monetary tax that is jizyah and its imposition is clearly mandated in the sura. This is a false and POV claim. I do not appreciate SlimVirgin running around childishly and reverting everything I do back to Jayjg's version without adding any input, as he has done this on 4 different articles.Yuber^(talk) 07:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

In the current text they are both "imposed", and the current version nowhere says it was a specifically monetary tax, but quite clearly states that the Qur'an does not clearly define jizyah as monetary. There is no question that the sura mandates jizyah, but it is not clearly exactly what the sura means, which the articles states. It also clearly states that de facto it was applied as a monetary tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, we have been over this before. Imposition is accurate, and the text doesn't say it was monetary. Why do you keep removing the consensus wording, and arguing with things the text doesn't even say? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Discuss here please. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Here please, Yuber. Right here. Here's where we can discuss your proposed change. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I've already commented on this many times below, but the concept is very simple. The word jizya in the Qur'an does not specifically mean a monetary tax, but the term was later applied to a monetary tax. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the imposition of the monetary tax is mandated by the sura. Now I know the article doesn't say monetary tax but instead says "jizya", however, prior to the sura there should be a clarification of what the word actually meant.Yuber^(talk) 20:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't says the imposition of the monetary tax is mandated by the sura. I'll repeat that; the article doesn't says the imposition of the monetary tax is mandated by the sura. So why bring up the monetary issue to begin with? And since there is disagreement about what the word actually meant, how can you insert your preferred definition at the top to the exception of all others? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It should still be clarified because nowhere in the Qur'an does it say to collect monetary taxes from people. Now tell me, what are your objections to this statement and why is it POV?

"The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an"

Yuber^(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It's POV because we have two whole paragraphs describing different definitions of the word "jizyah" and different root sources for them, yet you feel the need to pre-empt all that by inserting your preferred definition and root first, before we even get to see where it comes from. The whole point of those paragraphs is to point out that there are different views on what it means and what its root is, yet you insist on shoving your POV up top anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Its not a POV shove, its just a fact pure and simple. I clearly mention that it is "unclear if the meaning refers to monetary one". You can't just shove your POV right before quoting a sura.Yuber^(talk) 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you insist it means "compensation" and comes from "jaza", when there are a number of sources which say other things. Second of all, you argue against it meaning monetary compensation when it doesn't even say that. POV pushing, and original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

Even though it's referenced now, it seems one-sided in its (modern superimposed?) hostility to the tax, but returning to the counter-criticism which I earlier deleted with the rest of the section and is now absent: was it that different (in application) from poll taxes collected by other civilizations, and how? And can the critical description now be seen as a purely negative portrail, in relation to these other paralels by (silent) implication? I think there is a need for more indepth qualification, but I doubt I myself am qualified to enter it. Food for thought though nonetheless. El_C 06:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My main point is that in the sura it is not defined as a monetary tax. Later, the term was applied to a monetary tax. Also, the caliph umar changed the term to distance it from the sura.Yuber^(talk) 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The criticism is brief and and sourced; I'll added the counter-argument by Sir Thomas Arnold. If Yuber wants to bring sourced counter arguments he certainly can. However, what he cannot do is take quotes from ancient and authoritative books of Muslim law and shove them in the "criticism" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's brief and sourced, but it's also one-sided, lacking an historically comparative context. Yes, I agree with the need to stress on current scholarship, which I really have no idea on. El_C 07:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The solution is to bring other sourced arguments, then, not to delete material you don't like, or describe fiqh as "criticisms". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I only deleted unsourced material. :p El_C 07:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Yuber, you're moving material around without checking whether it makes sense. You keep leaving this sentence, for instance: "In return, those who paid the jizyah were not required to serve in the military and were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and responsibilities. , or mandatory charity required of Muslims." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's moved text around quite a number of times in a way which makes little sense, leaves gaping holes in the narrative, and is clearly an attempt to push a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You started the moving, Jayjg, without discussing it or even summarizing it.Yuber^(talk) 07:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually Yuber, you've been doing all sorts of moving without discussion, and in any event that's off topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So we both have been moving things, your point is?Yuber^(talk) 07:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My point is that you're not doing it in a careful manner, and you're leaving behind sentences that make no sense. Now you're deleting large chunks of text. You've been POV pushing on several pages today and all it does is create work for other editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be having difficulty following a lot of this; I'm not especially coherent at the moment though. El_C 07:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. ;-p I meant to add above that it would be helpful if Yuber could discuss proposed changes first on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would, instead of his repeated complex reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section again

Yuber, why do you insist that direct quote from seminal Muslim legal texts are "criticisms", but obvious apologetics for the jizyah by 20th century British historians are not defences of criticisms? Also, I believe you have violated the 3RR at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they belong in the definition section as they are largely anecdotal and aren't taken seriously. That is why the criticism section is the best place to put them since they came out of a site solely created to criticize the topic. Perhaps a new section called "writings of historians on jizyah" should be created and include all those quotes that you have moved around to subtly insert a POV. As for the 3RR, I do not see how I have violated it and you haven't. I have made sure to try to compromise after each of your edits and we both have made plenty of edits.Yuber^(talk) 07:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "largely anecdotal and aren't taken seriously"; do you have any evidence for that? From what I can tell they are seminal legal works written by eminent medieval legal scholars. How can we possibly define what the terms mean and their intent if we don't use the sources of Muslim law that discuss them? As I said, your deletion of them seems to be at best POV pushing, and closer to vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely there is, in the pertinent historiography, scholars who criticize these critics and their criticism. El_C 07:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; you meant there are scholars who criticize the legal works of Al-Mawardi and Al-Marghinani? Also, it's hard not to see how a sentence which specifically defines the terms can't be a definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Andrew G. Bostom/Khaled Abou El Fadl and Walter Short. As for the rest, I'm not sure I'm following you. El_C 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms I brought from them are one whole sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, at the time of writing the above, the section only consisted of two sentences. How quickly it has expanded. El_C 08:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, originally it was several paragraphs of pure original research. Now it is three paragraphs, all well cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well done! Indeed, it was "several paragraphs of pure original research," which is why I deleted the whole thing on sight. :) El_C 08:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

By the way, the work that Yuber describes as "largely anecdotal" and "not taken seriously" is described elsewhere as "the crowning masterpiece of the Hanafi school of law"[1] and "The Importance of this Book can not be exaggerated, it was and still is referred to in all Courts in Muslim India. It is also studied in most Hanafi based Dar-ul-Ulums and Islamic Universities" [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 07:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

From what you describe, it sounds as if it enjoys an authoritative acclaim. Is there a major scholarly current that treats it as 'largely anecdotal' is a question Yuber may wish to answer. El_C 08:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I fail to see how this is pertinent. Was any place on the planet still collecting this tax at the time of or after the declaration was signed? El_C 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Even worse, it's Original research. If someone has made this argument in criticizing jizyah then it might be relevant; as it is, it can't stay. I've deleted it. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Good call. El_C 08:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I think it's important to note that the traditional imposition of Jizyah violates modern human rights norms. Thats not original research, but instead part of the important work of corsslinking knowledge. Klonimus 08:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's important, someone else will have noted it, and then you can cite them. You can't make up your own arguments against jizyah, regardless of how unfair you think it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

JayG, I think you are taking the prohibition on origional research too far in this case. It's not original ressearch to cite wikipedia as a reference to itself. Saying that Jizyah violates the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be unconstitutional in almost all modern countries (I.e those that dont accept sharia as a basis for all.) is not original research. It's a statement of fact, and can be verified within wikipedia. Klonimus 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Original research often consists of statements of fact, all well cited. It's the combination of these facts to produce an original conclusion which is forbidden. That would include the conclusion that jizyah "violates the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be unconstitutional in almost all modern countries". Not to mention the fact that it is unclear how relevant modern notions of human rights are to ancient jurisprudence. In any event, it's obviously an attempt to promote a negative POV about jizyah. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm not convinced I'm comming up with an original conclusion at all. Poll taxes are regressive, a fact which is mentioned in a number of ciritical resources on Jizyah (Bat Ye'or, and that Hindu book you cited). Taxing people on the basis of sex and religion is prohibited by particles 1,2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also prohibited by First_Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. All of this is stated in a non judgemental NPOV manner.

In my mind, the purpose on an encyclopedia is to aggregate and crosslink information. That the whole point of a hypertext encyclopedia.Klonimus 18:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's not an original conclusion, then surely someone else will have come to this conclusion as well and put it down somewhere. Did Bat Yeor say anything about this? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hadith of "unverifiable veracity"

Yuber, are the hadith mentioned in the text of special "unverifiable veracity"? Why do you feel you keep having to mention it in this specific case? Do you have any evidence that they are so? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Very simply, if all hadiths are of unverifiable authenticity then a statement should be made right after that comment since not all people know what hadiths are.Yuber^(talk) 07:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, that they are all of "unverifiable authenticity" is your opinion; the Wikipedia article on hadith states "The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider ahadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book." Second, even if they were (and I see no evidence of it), your argument would mean that 'every single time hadith are mentioned in Wikipedia they would require the words "of unverifiable authenticity" appended to them, which is simply silly. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Jayjg, Ibn Warraq claims and provides good evidence to support the conclusion that pretty much all hadith are of unverifiable authenticity. How ever I think we should accept that hadith thought to be authentic by mainstream ulema are indeed authentic.Klonimus

General observations on this article

• I don't think this is the right article to discuss the magnitude, extent, or historical experience with discrimination of various kinds of non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands.
• It should, however, include a description of its basis in Muslim scripture and/or writings, its evolution over time, how it was applied, and what its impact was.
• It seems to me that the dispute is between how it was intended and how it was actually applied. From reading the article, I have no way of knowing whether it was an oppressive, discriminatory tax that kept large people in poverty for hundreds of years; or a benign charge applied inconsistenty the discriminatory effect of which was offset by taxes applied only to Moslems.
• "Imposed upon" and "required" are synonyms, unless one term is meant to imply coercion and the other a rule that was optional. --Leifern 12:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if you read Bat Ye'or she provides ample evidence that Jizyah was unevenly applied but that when ever when it was applied is was discriminatory, oppressive and resented. Compare Mogul emperor Akhbar the great, who did not collect Jizyah and emphasized toleration, with Azurgareb, who collected Jizyah leading to such resentment that civil war started throught india and the decline of the mogul empire began.

Before it was removed as "Original research" I pointed out how a fixed per capita assesment such as the Jizyah is a regressive tax, while the zakat is proportional and included an exemption to correct for any regressive nature. Klonimus 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

While your observation about the natures of the tax are correct, this is not an article comparing different Muslim taxes; as it is, the reference to zakat is dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Business about shaking by the throat

|left|thumb|100px|"Pay the Jizyah !!!"

If you're going to quote a source, provide bibliographic specifics of it, or a link to that source, not some POV rant that talks about it.

The link cited reads in part:

Needless to say, every single aspect of jihãd is aimed at the ultimate Islamic objective of conquering the whole world for Islam,

... which leads me to suspect that it may not be entirely objective. See Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Al-Zamakhshari, a prominent comentator on the Koran explicated Sura 9.29 as meaning " the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck." Ibn Warraq p 228-9 translation of Al-Zamakhshari

As you have asked, so it has been done. See the comment in the text. Klonimus 06:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good point Klonimus, and in any event the original source provided a quote, which is what was used. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, I still don't see your response to any of these points. It's hard to understand how the legal rulings of Muslim legal authorities on how Jizyah is applied can be counted as "criticism". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was Ibn Warraqs translation, I don't trust him as an unbiased source to translate the commentary of medieval scholars.Yuber^(talk) 14:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So it's a "criticism" because you don't trust the translator? And yet there is another source saying essentially the same thing; are they both bad translators? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq has a far better grasp of english than do most muslims who attempt to translate Islamic texts into english. His translations are accurate and much more readable than most others. Klonimus 02:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just read this now. Frankly, that is an amazingly Biased orientalist statement. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Muslims who translate Islamic and Arabic Literature into English. What marks Ibn Warraq as unique is that he is of an Anti-Islamic disposition and discards pieces of text he disaproves of. Sheikh Kabbani can give a translation of the same text yet his tranlation will contain quite a bit more. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I said anything biased, IMHO Ibn Warraq writes better in english about Islamic topics than lots of other people writing about Islamic topics in english. As for the bit under question, Jayjg provided a different translation that said subtantially the same thing, except that Ibn Warraq's translation was more readable. Do you have evidence that Ibn Warraqdiscards pieces of text he disaproves of ? Klonimus 03:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The Caliph Umar changed the word jizyah to sadaqah to improve its connotation from "tribute" to "friendly charity".

Yuber, you keep inserting the text "The Caliph Umar changed the word jizyah to sadaqah to improve its connotation from "tribute" to "friendly charity"." There are a number of issues with this:

1. Your source does not say "friendly charity".
2. There is no indication that Umar's alternative tax was ever used except in reference to one specific Christian tribe, which is already mentioned.
3. Clearly it was called still called jizyah for many, many, centuries after Umar made this accomodation with this one specific tribe; this isolated renaming/replacement of jizyah with something else was a one-off incident, and so does not belong in the definition of jizyah, but rather where it actually is, in the description of what Umar did with that one tribe.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Bat Ye'or questions wheather the christians were really happy to pay twice as much tax under the name of "friendly charity". Klonimus 17:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabic root of the word jizyah

Since there are actually Muslim sources given in the article for the meaning and the root of the word jizyah, and they differ, it would be best if any unsourced claims to its meaning, and original research arguments about it, be left out of the article. In particular, claims about it possibly being non-monetary seem to have no basis in any sources or reality, since all the sources indicate it was understood and applied as a monetary tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"'Jizya' is derived from the root "Jaza" or "compensate". Arabs usually say the phrase "Jaza, yajzi" which means "compensate" or 'reward" if a person rewards another for the service rendered by the latter." Taken from [3]Yuber^(talk) 18:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent; we have another sourced definition; I'll add it. Please stop inserting your own preferences, and your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The best source for the root meaning would be an authoritative Arabic dictionary. Anyone have one of those around? —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Would a modern Arabic dictionary be sufficient, or would we need to find one for Qur'anic Arabic? The language has evolved in the past 1400 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideally both, though Classical and Modern Standard Arabic are mutually intelligible; the meaning might have shifted over the years. There's also speculation that it's an Aramaic loanword. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So what's your position on Yubder's inserting one specific definition he prefers at the beginning of the article, and then listing all the other possibilities in a paragraph further down? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not speaking Arabic, I have no opinion on the matter. Yuber, do you speak Arabic? —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, please respond here in talk: rather than continually inserting original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Your own source confirmed my views, and I doubt that you are an expert on Arabic roots so it should stay.Yuber^(talk) 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And indeed it is in there, as one possibility. Now please stop inserting "original research"; who, besides you, has ever brought up the idea that the compensation might not be monetary? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that jizyah is not monetary, I said the word in the Qur'an is not monetary. The literal translation of tax is dareebay, and the word had existed long before Islam in Arabic and still exists today as the word for tax. Jizyah was an Islamic term derived from the Qur'an.Yuber^(talk) 19:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference? Why do you keep mentioning it, when no-one else does, and when sharia and practice have clearly defined it as monetary? Also, why do you keep inserting the etymology before we even see the source, and your own preferred etymology at that? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The difference is very simple, if you want to quote out of the Qur'an you can't say it is monetary because the word jizyah does not refer to a monetary sum. The application under the Islamic state was monetary and that is explicated clearly in the article.Yuber^(talk) 19:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say it was monetary; you're arguing against a point that hasn't been made in the first place. Your original argument doesn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article says that the imposition of jizya was mandated by the sura, when in fact it was the word jizya that was derived from the sura, not the actual practical definition of a monetary tax.Yuber^(talk) 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Sura itself says that imposition of jizyah is mandated; it just doesn't explain what jizyah is. The derivation of a monetary tax from that is explained in the article. Who says that the jizyah is not mandated by the Sura listed? I'm finding this constant arguing with what the Sura itself says, and counter arguments for what the article does not say, to be very tiresome. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone watching this talk page read enough Arabic to tell us if جِزْيَةَ transliterates to jizyah? Like I said, I don't know Arabic, but by careful reading of the Arabic alphabet article I can see that it has what seem to be the right letters (jīm-zāy-yāʾ-hāʾ) in the right order with the right vowels, and I found it in the right place. Searching it in a modern English-French-Arabic dictionary turns up this page, which gives various meanings, all having to do with taxes. That page also provides links to an entry in an Arabic lexicon, but that I can't read. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to jizya

After editing this article for a while I've noticed that whenever I control+f for jizyah in any of the translations it doesn't come up, and instead the translations all use "jizya". This article should be moved there to avoid discrepancies.Yuber^(talk) 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Once you remove the Google ghosts, "jizyah" gets 452 hits vs. "jizya" which gets 436. It seems "jizyah" is slightly more popular, but I'll check Yahoo too. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The comparable numbers for Yahoo are 997 and 997. Hmm, something funny there. Anyway, lets wait till you're all done with the original research, apologetics, and reverting without Talk: justification or even meaningful Talk: comment. Once the article has calmed down and you've decided to follow Wikipedia policy, we can change the name if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will wait for you to finish your reverts as well. Your changing of all "jizya" back to "jizyah" isn't appreciated either.Yuber^(talk) 20:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no evidence that "jizya" is significantly more popular, so why should we change it? Once you stop constantly reverting and let the article settle down, we can look at that calmly. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Very cursory search: I'm seeing Jizya being used more widely in the scholarship: Journal of World History, Third World Quarterly, Review of International Studies, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, The Journal of the Historical Society, Middle Eastern Studies, Comparative Studies in Society and History, journals.cambridge.org, research.yale.edu, tc.columbia.edu, sscnet.ucla.edu, et cetera, etc.

Jizyah produces less than a fifth the results. I'll list the first few: The Muslim World, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Journal of Early Christian Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence, Islamic Research and Training Institute, Journal of Political Ideologies , journals.cambridge.org, carlisle-www.army.mil, american.edu, muse.jhu.edu, etc. El_C 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You've used Jizyah for both, so I'm not sure which is which. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Sorry, emberassing typo. El_C 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

So you think a move to jizya makes sense then? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my findings perhaps suggest a shift towards a more 'Anglicanized' form, as is seen for example, in Mizrahi (~9000 scholarly hits) versus (redirection to) Mizrachi (~2500 hits). El_C 02:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if no-one raises any objections over the next day, then a move would make sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Since no objections were raised, I've moved the article to the new name. El_C 11:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed quote about letter attributed to Muhammad

I searched all over and I found no other source for that strange letter, given the fact that he was illiterate and all letters sent during his time weren't even written by him. For example, the letter to King Yadzegard was written by Khalid ibn Walid. Also, the site that was put as a source is a totally anti-Islamic site. Until that letter can be sourced from somewhere else, that site does not have enough credibility for that quote to stay.Yuber^(talk) 02:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, I don't think you're a particularly reasonable arbiter of which sites are "reliable" or not. The site doesn't claim that Muhammad wrote it himself, but rather that he had it sent. It gives a proper footnote for the source of the quote. Why don't you get hold of the source in question, and look it up, if you don't think it is actually in there. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Hedaya's definition of jizyah

Yuber, the Hedaya says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat". Can you please explain why you keep removing this definition from the Definitions section, which lists various definitions of jizyah, and putting it in the Applications/Islamic Legal Commentaries section, which lists different Islamic Legal Commentaries describing how it should be applied? It's clearly a definition, not a commentary on how it should be applied. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a definition because it is part of legal commentary. A speciers of punishment inflicted upon the infidels is a description of how it should be applied.Yuber^(talk) 21:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In his legal commentary he defines jizyah, just as everyone else does. Also, you've (again) deleted all sorts of well sourced material, and put your own favorite definition up top, failing to recognize the various alternatives. Please stop this behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Muhammad letter is not well-sourced, and you know it. Your failure to find a reliable source leaves me with no choice but to remove it.Yuber^(talk) 21:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clearly and well sourced; go look it up in the book referenced if you don't believe its accurate. And, of course, you keep inserting your preferred definition above the source, and you keep moving definitions you don't like out of the definition section, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

For such a well sourced letter, it's a surprise that only an anti-Islamic site has it. You know as well as I do that the source of that letter is Moshe Gil. Not to be judgemental here, but I doubt that Moshe Gil would be an unbiased or accurate source. Until you can find an ACCURATE source about that letter I will have to keep removing it, or at the very least insert a lengthy disclaimer about it.Yuber^(talk) 21:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your personal doubts and POV are pretty irrelevant to whether or not it is properly sourced, don't you think? Do you have any evidence that the source or the quote is inaccurate, besides your own prejudices? Are you planning to make up your own personal disclaimer as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any source (that doesn't cite Moshe Gil), Muslim or secular, besides Moshe Gil's that contains this letter?Yuber^(talk) 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Gil seems a pretty solid academic source: PhD in Oriental Studies, author of many books on the subject area, prize winner, etc.[4] Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe he is unreliable, other than personal prejudice? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Middle East scholars have lauded "A History of Palestine, 634-1099" as the most comprehensive historiography of Palestine from the initial Arab Muslim conquests, until the arrival of the Crusaders in 1099. Remarkably, despite the constraints of academic annotation, and the uncertainties of translation (i.e., from Hebrew to English), Professor Gil's narrative is eminently readable for the non-professional student of history. Through the clear, dispassionate presentation of a rich profusion of data, he captures the stark, unromantic reality of Muslim ruled Palestine during this 465-year period." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Moshe Gil's history of Palestine from the Muslim conquest to the Crusades is the first comprehensive survey of its kind. Based on an impressive array of sources, the author examines the lives of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities of Palestine against a background of the political and military events of the period. This study will be an essential resource for students and specialists in mediaeval Islamic and Jewish history and religious studies". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Israelis praising Moshe Gil does not refer to the specific argument that I made. Where did Moshe Gil get this letter? If it actually existed it would be found in many more places. I can come up with a number of Arab authors that have quotes attributed to Israelis such as Ariel Sharon and the like; but I have a feeling you'd instantly revert me if I put one of those quotes in Ariel Sharon's page without even adding a disclaimer to where it came from. Once again, until you can find a source, Muslim or secular (that doesn't cite Moshe Gil), I will have to keep removing this letter.Yuber^(talk) 22:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, then, that his argument is (widely) disputed in the scholarship, Yuber? El_C 22:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if Moshe Gil was a Palestinian. All I'm asking for is a Muslim or secular source that doesn't cite Moshe Gil that has this letter. Once again, at the very LEAST there should be a disclaimer. By the way, I added Sharon's quote to the Sharon page, let's see how long it takes you to revert me ;)...Yuber^(talk) 22:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Excuse me, Yuber, but you have failed to address my question. Hmm, I seem to be invisible here; let's see if my reverts are noticed at least... El_C 06:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

---

You want to see how long it takes for me to revert a known internet hoax? The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. See [5] [6]etc. This is an egregious display of bad faith and WP:POINT on your part, Yuber. There is no-one who claims that Gil's scholarship is faulty, or this quote false, except you. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're engaging in a huge double-standard. I ask you to find another source that has this quote but you say Moshe Gil is a very reliable source. However, when I source a quote about Sharon you say it's been proven a hoax. So Deborah Sassner has the ability to prove things as hoaxes now just because she writes for a neo-conservative newspaper with ads for Reagan t-shirts on the site?Yuber^(talk) 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The quote you have brought is from a novel by Amos Oz, and is a well-known hoax. The quote by Gil, who is a respected academic and expert in the field, is unquestioned by anyone but you. Continually inserting a known hoax into another article because you don't like an unquestioned quote from a respected academic in this article is WP:POINT at best. You are heading for an RfC if you don't stop this disruptive behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You have ignored my question again and again. Is there any source besides Gil for this quote? I am going to insert the disclaimer now.Yuber^(talk) 00:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Why does there need to be more than one source? I recommend against inserting any original research into this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added the disclaimer, tell me if you have any problems with it.Yuber^(talk) 00:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
• Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
• Claims which are not supported or which are contradicted by the prevailing view in the scientific community.
• Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues)

I think this section of the article on sources in wikipedia best applies to this letter.Yuber^(talk) 00:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Yuber, if you're going to insert the POV tag, note its disclaimer which states: [p]lease see the relevant discussion on the talk page. That means specifically for that given insertion of the tag. Please make sure to do so for all articles. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above shows why I think this article is very POV. The first sentence doesn't talk about the meaning of the word and reads as if the Qur'an mandates asking for monetary tribute from someone. Also, the quote attributed to Muhammad was created by a Jewish historian and exists in no other history, Muslim or secular. This article is POV for sure.Yuber^(talk) 23:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties following you. Note that I was the one who created this talk page, and please recall where that article was before that (edit war wise). Also, note that I reverted to YOUR version, not anyone elses. A little leeway, please. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And, you have yet to answer my qeustion above; leading me to believe (still), that I am invisible to you unless I revert your changes. Moreover, your comments above are broad statements which neglect to address, conretely, any specific changes. I'm not certain how they apply to the insertion of the tag at this point in time, which I tend to view as a shortcut to discussing the issues here, and as such, strongly discourage. Of course, you are free to insert the tag just as I am fre to revert it. El_C 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You didn't revert to my version. The version that exists right now isn't mine. Here's what I find POV:

• Introduction:

This intro is more NPOV and more accurate: The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [7]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:

Jayjg's intro is highly POV because it is suggesting that the taking of a tax from someone is mandated by the Qur'an, which is totally false.

• Muhammad quote:

Not found in any other history, secular or Muslim.

• Hedayah:

Hedayah is legal commentary, not a definition. Yuber^(talk) 23:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't matter, your name was on that revision indicating changes on your part, Yes, the above is fine as an explanation, but next time, it should be made a priori to the insertion. Anyway, it's a legal commentary with definitions, no? I'm sure this could all be qualified, but one step at a time. You don't wish for people to resist your changes simply because they are hard pressed to follow what you're doing... El_C 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm inclined to revert you on principle simply for you failing to address (or even acknowledge) my question in the section above. El_C 23:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber (Talk | block) (Please stop reverting a POV heading, I explained it on the talk page) — that is not a fair edit summary, I did not revert the tag once the comments were provided. El_C 23:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What question would that be? I looked over that section and it was about Moshe Gil's letter. My contention was that it exists in no other history of Islam either Muslim or secular. You asked if Moshe Gil's argument was widely disputed in the scholarship. From the summary of his book, I take it his argument is that Muslims forcefully took over Palestine and subjected everyone to their rule and forced them to convert. In that case, his argument is widely disputed.Yuber^(talk) 23:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that was it. But I was not asking about how that argument is viewed, unless it's inextricably tied to the one regarding the letter. Simply put, I am unfamilliar with his work and wanted to learn more. And, from your answer, I'm still not sure how it stands and viewed in the scholarship (though it may, indeed, provide some clues, it isn't enough at this point). I have no opinion on any of this, by the way. Are there any references you can provide where he is being criticized for this? El_C 00:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitions belong in the definition section

Definitions of Jizyah belong in the definition section, commentary on its application belongs in the commentary section. Please do not mistake one for the other, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk)

Following up:

1. One person says that the underlying root of the word jizyah is jaza, meaning "compensation", and defines it as "A sum of money to be put on anyone who enters the themah (protection and the treaty of the muslims) from the people of the book."
2. Another person says it derives from ’idjzã, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."
3. A third says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat."

Can you explain why the statement first is a definition, but the second and third are not? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Asking again, Yuber; why do you insert your preferred definitions in the "Source" section, and remove definitions your don't like from the "Definitions" section entirely? This blatant POV pushing really must come to an end at some point, ideally voluntarily. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No other histories (Muslim or secular)

Yuber, can you please source this claim? Have you read all other histories, Muslim and secular, to know what each one says? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Gil the Jew

Yuber, why do you insist on identifying Moshe Gil as a Jewish historian?[8] [9] I find this troubling for a couple of reasons:

1. How do you know he is a Jew? You claim he is one, and "a proud one at that", but what evidence do you have for this? Are you speculating based on his name? How do you know he is not a Muslim? Christian? Son of a Jew and a Christian woman who considers himself non-Jewish? Why do you feel your speculations can be entered as fact on Wikipedia?
2. Even more troubling, why is it relevant? You also claim "the rest of the commentators in here's religions are relevant" but have entered neither religion nor ethnicity for any of the other sources provided on this page. We quote from Norman Stillman, Fred Donner, S.D. Goitein, Thomas Arnold, Bat Yeor, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Shakir, Khalifa, Pikthal, Yusuf Ali, etc., and in no case did you find it necessary to speculate about their religion and/or ethnicity, yet for some reason here you insist on it. This looks to me like a rather crude attempt to poison the well, but I'd be interested in your explanation.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you rather the description be a professor at Tel Aviv university in Israel? The credibility of the source is in question, so he should be identified in some way.Yuber^(talk) 23:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The credibility of the source is not in question for any particular rational reason. As for his University, you don't include that for any of the other people mentioned here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

We did before you stripped out the source citiation for one of the links. I'm going to add it back, because IMHO it's relevant. Klonimus 01:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not included in the body of the article itself, and never has been. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, that particular commentator was never even mentioned by name, just referred to as a "modern commentator". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

4th revert

Yuber, you've reverted to your preferred order and preferred wording (The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [10]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:) four times now. The fact that the versions are slightly different is irrelevant; this kind of gaming of the revert rule is frowned upon, and people are blocked for complex reverts all the time. I'm giving you a chance to revert back before I report you. Please take it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, please look at the edit history. I made an edit today, then you reverted. Then I reverted, then you reverted. Then I reverted again, then you reverted. You're on three reverts, I'm on two. Thanks.Yuber^(talk) 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your first edit returned the order and wording from May 15. That counts as the first revert. I really hate to have you blocked again, Yuber, please take this opportunity to revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My first edit was not a revert.Yuber^(talk) 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Think it over very, very carefully. I'm telling you how policy is interpreted. I'll give you a few minutes. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been mulling bringing Yuber up for an RfC to have him limited to one revert per day on any Islamic, Middle Eastern, Israeli, or Jewish topic. Yuber seems incapable of contributing to an Islam related article without getting into a revert war with sombody. The Complex reverts, and unmarked reverts are very annoying and could be contructed as acting in bad faith Klonimus 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, your first edit was a revert, because you went back to a pervious edit of yours (which you have entered many times in the past) whereby you switch the imposition of with etymology in =sources=. I urge you to read the three revert policy more closely, and to revert yourself accordingly. A complex reverts is still a revert. El_C 01:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my Edits.

• A Jizyah upon. (THis preserves Yuber's idea of the word having no intrinsic meaning, and that it was later assigned its current meaning later)
• Move the translation stuff into the source section.
• Moshe Gil of Tel Aviv University, nice NPOV way to describe him.
• Added some Info to the links section. I think it's very important to describe outbound links.

Klonimus 01:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Amendments

I made an ammendment but Yuber deliberately removed it. Please check the history!

The Jizyah is clearly an imperial tax that was imposed to humilate the non-Muslims whose lands were conquered. Therefore, I feel this should be added: "that originated from the era of Islamic Imperialism"

and I feel "protection of the Muslim community" should be ammended to "right to live among the Muslim community" since if a non-Muslim fails to pay the Jizyah he will be normally executed.

--Garywbush 17:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is sort of correct. The jizyah, along with certain other rules imposed on dhimmi, originated from the early era of the Arab conquests, when the Muslims were a minority military elite in the Near East. Montgomery Watt traces it to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a strong tribe would protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a certain tribute. And indeed, those who paid the jizyah were afforded the same protection as Muslims when the Islamic state was invaded. Also I am not sure it was the usual practice to execute those who didn't pay the tax; the Kitab al-Kharaj cited in this article recommends imprisoning those who didn't pay. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Moshe Gil

Jayjg and Klonimus have been involved in an explosion of bad faith editing on this article including removing the description of who Moshe Gil is. Listen, Moshe Gil doesn't have an article, we must describe who he is and "a professor at Tel Aviv University" is perfectly fine and NPOV. Also, the wording that Jayjg insists on using is still POV.Yuber^(talk) 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You haven't identified any of the other many sources in the article, as I've stated above. Please respond to the many, many questions left for you above in talk, rather than your typical bad-faith revert warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to mention that Gil is an expert on the Cairo Geniza documents, that's more relevant than his employer. I happen to have this particular book, btw, a very scholarly piece, and as I have more time, I'll try to add something to the article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This supposed "letter by Muhammad" predates those documents by two centuries and the letter is dated two years after Muhammad's death, therefore the "Cairo Geniza" documents are not relevant. There is a definite discrepancy here.Yuber^(talk) 00:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think MPerel said the documents were from the Geniza, but perhaps MPerel can clarify. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, these aren't Geniza documents, but I am merely mentioning Gil's main expertise. However, this book is a 967-page compilation (published by Cambridge University Press) of history based on manuscripts from Jewish, Arab, and Christian communities of the time. Gil has personally examined original manuscripts in their original languages and describes examining some of them by means of ultra-violet rays with the aid of special photographic facilities. There are 19 pages referenced in the index under "jizya", so I will report some of his discussion on this topic, again, as I have more time. The context of the letter to Eilat is in the book with four other surviving letters to four other communities. This letter starts out, "To Yuhanna b. Ruba and the worthies of Ayla, Peace be with you! Praised be Allah, there is no God save Him. I have no intention of fighting you before writing to you. Thou has to accept Islam, or pay the tax, ...." The footnote gives the amount of the tax levied on the people of Ayla according to Waqidi as "300 dinars annually, for there were 300 men there." The other three letters besides the one to Eilat were to the people of Jarba, Adhruh, and Maqna. More later, probably in a few days... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I'll add one more thing before I take off, the footnote to this particular letter makes reference to several other sources concerning this letter. It's quite a lengthy footnote, but I'll just list the other sources he cites who also reference details about the letter: Ibn Sa'd, Waqidi, Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Hisham, Mas'udi, Abu 'Ubayd, Dhahabi, Diyarbakri, Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn al-Athir. I'm assuming these other sources are mostly in Arabic.

Explanation for changes

I removed the Sahih Muslim section jayjg added because I noticed that all of the information was very redundant, and was already stated later in the article. I also sourced some quotes and added an explanation for the claim that male non-Muslims who served in the military were exempt from jizya, as that claim was challenged in the article on dhimmi.Yuber^(talk) 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Shahih Muslim section is another set of perfectly valid hadith, and they are different hadith from the other ones mentioned. As for your other edits, you conspicuously failed to mention your revert of a POV definition of jizya into the Sources section. You have spent several weeks tendentiously editing this article with little or no justification for your edits, and misleading edit summaries. Your goodwill period has expired. From now on, unless you actually discuss your changes first, and get consensus, they will simply be reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You can revert as many times as you want, I will continue to edit. You seem to be the only one who reverts me minutes after I make an edit, and all that you just said about me could very easily be said against you.Yuber^(talk) 23:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you really need to try and work with other people. Your constant reverting is thought by many people to rude and insulting. I understand that you feel that some people are trying to fill wikipedia with anti-islamic bais. But constantly reverting back to your own version, shows a deep lack trust and respect for your fellow editors.Klonimus 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do what you like Yuber, but if you can't learn to work with other editors, and can't learn to edit in order to improve the article, rather than pushing POVs, your edits will not remain. In particular, if you continue to revert to insert your preferred definition of jizya, and original research regarding its meaning, into the Sources section, you will be reverted, and I will not be bothering to try to "save" any other edits you might have made, nor even bothering to comment in the edit summary; you have my comment here, simply apply it whenever this happens. If you have any substantive positive contibutions to make, and wish them not to be reverted out of hand, make them in separate edits prior to your inevitable revert to your POV introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the sahih, look at this sentence in the article:

Jizya was levied in the time of Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran, and Zoroastrians in Bahrain. W. Montgomery Watt traces its origin to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a powerful tribe would agree to protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a tribute, which would be refunded if the protection proved ineffectual.5 The sahih is redundant in that all that information was already present and it was an obvious POV ploy by you to restate it.Yuber^(talk) 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! To begin with, the section on the hadith is comprehensively listing the various hadith in which the concept of jizyah is discussed. Moreover, when you look at that particular collection of hadith, it becomes quite clear that there is one verse in particular (actually two) which are contained in no other collections of hadith, nor discussed anywhere in the article. Of course, you deleted those unique hadiths as well; I wonder why? Could it be that you thought they reflected negatively on jizya, and deleted them all for that reason? Why of course, since your edits have, since the start of this page, been purely for the purpose of inserting apologetics and POV, and removing or discrediting anything you thought might reflect negatively on jizya. In any event, the hadith section is a comprehensive listing, and all hadith currently there will remain. I plan to add other hadith as time permits and as I am able to find them, and they will remain as well, whether they reflect positively or negatively on jizya. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Jayjg. Yuber does show a disturbing habit of making edits that, since the start of this page, been purely for the purpose of inserting apologetics and POV, and removing or discrediting anything Yuber thought might reflect negatively on jizya.Klonimus 01:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were all very redundant and were already talked about in the article, I cited them as sources in the history of jizya. Your paragraph contains no specific points except an analysis of my edits. As for you, Jayjg, you have engaged in complex reverting as well and have reinstated your POV definition over and over again. You can add hadith, but if they are redundant and already cited then I will remove them.Yuber^(talk) 05:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the hadiths were not summarized anywhere; I challenge you to point out where. In any event, the hadith section will be comprehensive. The Source section contains no definition of mine at all, much less a "POV" one; please stop trying to insert a POV definition into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were just references for the history section. I already pointed out where above.Yuber^(talk) 05:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the hadiths were the hadiths, not references for the history section; please stop removing them, and in particular please stop removing the ones you don't like - it betrays a dismaying POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

History section

Is there any way we can move the history section up towards the top, preferably after the lead? Either that or expand the lead by incorporating main points from the history section; this would help the general audience. As it stands right now, the article is not easy to read. As an outsider, I would like to be drawn into the article, learning more about the concept as I go along. --Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I also think it would be of benefit to start the article with an origins of section. See also Charles' comment three sections up. El_C 04:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas; go for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was (sorta!) hoping you would volunteer to author it, Jay, as you obviously know a great deal more about this topic than myself. El_C 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You're the historian, not me. :-) Perhaps MPerel can work on it, she has the big book on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm primarily an historian of 20th Century central Africa though, so my knowledge of Jizya is truly dismal. Yes, perhaps we should ask her nicely to write it (I'm only saying that since I don't think intimidation would work – otherwise naturally, that would be my first recourse). El_C 16:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What about splitting most of the Hadith out of the article Jizyah (Sources). I appreacite your work Jayjg, in ducmenting mention of Jizya in the Hadith, however it seems to me that Hadith are in general too obscure for a general purpose article.Klonimus 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It's still a small article, no need to start breaking out sub-articles yet. But I take your point, I'll move them down lower, into the Islamic legal stuff, so they aren't as prominent. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were all very redundant so I just cited them in the history section. I also reinstated the NPOV definition and reinserted removed quotes.Yuber^(talk) 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it is customary to discuss before making such drastic changes to an article. You've made very substantial unsourced changes, and deleted alot of unique information. Without discussion, such actions might be viewed by some as inserting POV or even vandalism. I encourage you to discuss specific changes, especially ones so substantial.

Guy Montag 05:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page because of the longstanding revert war between Yuber and other editors, which seems always to hinge on the same few sentences. Please provide reputable sources to show that your edits are correct; if the dispute can't be sorted out that way, then formal or informal mediation might help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed?

Can we make a list of all the disputed things in this article? Klonimus 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Imposition of Jizya text.

Yay !! a brand new Yuber revert war.

Jesus wept, Yuber, you need to stop trying to insert your favored NPOV which by concensus was rejected. And obeying the 3RR would also be nice. Klonimus 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber back AGAIN?

I see Yuber's already back - as usual, he just waited for the ban to be up, then started pushing POV.Enviroknot 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this because Yuber has reverted to the same passage 25 times in just over a month, and there's no sign he's going to stop. The passage he wants is: ""The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum. Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is, though some believe it to be mandated ..."

Other editors want: "The imposition of jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an."

I'm therefore assuming the only difference between you is the mandatory nature of the tax. Perhaps someone could check for references to add to the text, either showing it to be regarded by most scholars as mandatory, or showing there to be doubt among scholars. Let me know when you'd like to start editing it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here is that Yuber's whole insertion is POV and irrelevant. For example, "though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum"; who said it was in the first place? When someone answers a question that no-one is asking, that's a clear indication of POV-pushing. Similarly, "Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is"; what is the point of this? We give a whole section on the various definitions, why stick this in the section describing the source? Again, obvious POV pushing. Finally, "though some believe it to be mandated"; every single Muslim source I have found (not "some") attribute it to this verse in the Qur'an, including every source given at the end of the article. If Yuber has many sources which attribute it to some other source (which his "some" would imply), let him bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why I Am Not A Muslim

User:67.161.2.106 has removed the following text:

Bat Ye'or has written about the history and practice of jizya in her book Dhimmitude. Ibn Warraq has described jizya as discriminatory and oppressive in his book Why I Am Not A Muslim.

I will leave it to the experts to discuss whether these books are relevant to the article. -- Aleph4 13:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the article

I propose to rearrange the article as follows:

1. Quotes from hadiths should be moved from Application to Sources (renamed from Source), after Sura 9:29;
2. The sentence "Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah." should be moved from Sources to Definition;
3. Islamic Legal commentary should be a separate section;
4. Resources should be changed to References.--Pecher 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing mediation

There is currently an ongoing mediation involving the contents of this article. Anyone who has been involved in the recent disputes over this article's contents is requested to attend to help achieve consensus. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

oldid=43164168

Disputed edit:

"and choose not to serve in the army. In return, they were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and restrictions. Muslim citizens were required to pay zakat instead of Jizya."

It's ahistorical to claim that dhimmis were free to choose military service. They could serve only after conversion, and even that is an simplification. So if they could choose after all, it was the choice to convert or not. Saying that, "in return, they were considered under the protection" implies the omission of the other aspects of the dhimmi status as humiliation. It's a misrepresentation by ommission and not fit for a short introduction, as the first paragraph ought to be. It gets explained in detail afterwards anyway. --tickle me 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We should discuss this issue in the Ongoing mediation. For now, you can revert it if you want. Please add the disputed tag, if you want to do so. I, personally, will not revert it. Let's see what happens in the Ongoing mediation. Thanks --Aminz 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus?

Jesus overturned the concept of Jizya? o.O How in the zarking frell does that work out, either my historical math is wrong, or that sentence needs some clarification. I tagged a ((fact)) on it for now Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The hadith in question say that jizya will be eventually abolished by Jesus after his second coming. Pecher ^Talk 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about Zakat: is there evidence that Zakat was spent as freely upon Dhimmis as it was upon Muslims? If it wasn't, then the relative size of the taxes is irrelevant, because the Dhimmis will have had their own versions of Zakat in addition to Jizya.Timothy Usher 21:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Zakat was meant only for the Muslim poor, while jizya was a tax paid by dhimmis in favor of the Muslims, so you're right: their relative sizes are irrelevant. Pecher ^Talk 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jibran1, what do you think of the points above?

It seems to me as if California were to have to send money to New York every year, and New Yorkers were to say, hey, at least you don't have to pay NY sales tax. Worse, because New York would also be making all the decisions. I'll find the cite, but I've seen one recently that made it clear that only Muslims could receive Zakat. If so, then the Dhimmis would presumably have their own communal taxes for the same purpose (or deny services to their own). And if so, to say that Dhimmis are exempt from Zakat is thus tremendously misleading.Timothy Usher 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to answer the points :). While it is true that the Zakah is only entitled for poor Muslims, the other tax that is paid by Muslims ONLY (Tithe- an agricultural tax- I have spoken about this at Talk:Islam) is used to pay all poor, including non-Muslims. So over here, taxes taken from the Muslims are being used to pay for the non-Muslims. Furthermore, if there is still need for financial aid for the non-Muslims, they have all righs to be entitled for it from the Muslim Exchequer/state treasury, so they can be financially stable enough as the Muslims. This is to add to the fact that poor non-Muslims are exempt from Jizya, their sustenance is provided by the Exchequer. Plus, the jizya that is taken from non-Muslims is in return of a service (military protection) provided to them, to cover costs and other expenditures of this service. If they wish to not pay jizya, they can join the military and I have stated instances below where some non-Muslims joined the military and therefore were exempted from jizya. Islamic Economics is a huge topic and I have only provided a mere summary of a few issues, in reference to your questions. For further questions pertaining to Islamic Economics, you can ask Islamic scholars and Muftis at http://www.islam.tc and http://www.islam-qa.com Thanks for your input and efforts at Wikipedia :) --Jibran1 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see here any reliable sources saying that zakat was used to pay to non-Muslim poor. Pecher ^Talk 06:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what is the Arabic term you're translating as tithe? Do you mean kharaj?Timothy Usher 06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tithe" is apparently ushr, but again I cannot see any relaible source saying that it could be used to pay non-Muslim poor. Pecher ^Talk 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas we also have Kharaj, an tax on non-Muslim agricultural land. The overwhelming majority of agricultural land in the early Caliphate will fall under Kharaj - it'd be the equivalent of space aliens imposing property tax from their flying saucers. The idea of Jizya as a seperate poll tax comes later. In the Qur'anic reference, it clearly can't mean "poll tax" but only some generalized tribute.Timothy Usher 07:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sura 9:29

Again, Jibran1, ^{[Quran 009:029]} - your wholly benevolent interpretation is un-Qur'anic.

Otherwise it might read,

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they're given the option of not serving in the military in return for a small fee, or of serving and not paying the fee, and feel very equal."Timothy Usher 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the context of this verse? Can anybody helps us? I don't have access to any tafsirs but try to find one--Aminz 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The context appears to be that they've decided to attack the Byzantines. Earlier in the Sura, it's said that some of the Pagans broke their treaty, but that's not said of the people of the book. The standards for declaring war have become considerably looser, most likely because his army is a lot more powerful than it once was. So now they will shake them down for tribute. Pretty typical behavior for armed pastoralists of any religion.Timothy Usher 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not MY interpretation. It is the interpretation of various Islamic scholars, based on Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas. Please understand that the sources of Islamic law are not limited to Qur'an. And the verse that you have quoted does mention that the non-Mulims should be subdued to pay the jizya. However, the same logic is to be applied to Muslims for not paying the Zakah. Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakah and Tithe (the other tax that only Muslims are required to pay). The following are cases when non-Muslims were not required to pay Jizya because they joined the military:

When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in 22 A.H., a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from jizyah in view of their military services.

Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire: the Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians, who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction and so on were exempted form the kharaj.

As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes. The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armored battalion in wartime. The jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, which carried water to Constantinople, nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, as just compensation for their services to the state.

Thanks --Jibran1 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast this discussion to that on the Apostasy in Islam talk page. In that case, the relatively benevolent interpretation is found in the Qur'an, while the Hadith are relatively strict; here, vice-versa. Perhaps someone understands this better than I, but to me the most straightforward reading is that this was originally meant as mere tribute, not a permanent institution for dealing with tolerated religious minorities. I feel that none of us really has the expertise to answer this (and wonder if it's even answerable). I know I certainly don't.Timothy Usher 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the above should be interpreted that the exemption from jizya was voluntary. Non-Muslims living in border provinces could be recruited to the Muslim army and they were exempted from jizya for the year spent in service. However, they could serve only in the lower ranks and were not entitled to any share in the booty. Pecher ^Talk 06:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jizya camel incident

The last line of his hadith is puzzling me. Can someone explain?Timothy Usher 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Malik said, "I do not think that livestock should be taken from people who pay the jizya except as jizya."
This means that:
The camel was actually PAID as jizya (instead of cash being paid as jizya). Therefore, the camel can be slaughtered and eaten. However, it would be wrong to seize livestock (in this case, the camel) if it was NOT PAID as jizya but simply the posession of people who paid jizya. --Jibran1 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me somewhat different from both your and the existing interpretation. They seized the camel and then Malik said, hey, have a heart: this should count towards their tribute. Alternately, he's saying, hey, that was pretty messed up, they're already paying us, let's not steal from them anymore. Zakat doesn't come up here, though it did in both your descriptions (whoever the other editor(s) is here).

Again, I'd like an expert (and ideally non-religious) opinion.Timothy Usher 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you have addressed me in your comment above, I will give my opinion:
Zakat does come up in the hadith when Umar asked, "Is it from the livestock of the jizya or the zakat?" and Aslam replied, "From the livestock of the jizya." Umar said, "By Allah, you wish to eat it." Aslam said, "It has the brand of the jizya on it.". Umar asked this because he is aware that if it is from Zakat, then he is not entitled to it since the Zakat is only (& exclusively) for the poor. And Aslam said that 'it has the brand of the jizya on it' which means that it has been marked as being jizya collected from non-Muslims.

The facts of the hadith were malicous...(errr...I am forced to assume good faith)... erroneously changed in the article (along with the jizya fact):
The hadith clearly mentions that Umar odered the camel to be salughtered. It does not mention that he slaughtered the camel. Also, the hadith does not explicitly mention that he ate the camel. It says that he districuted the slaughtered camel to the wives of the Prophet, his (Umar's) daughter, and invited the Muhajirun and the Ansar to eat it. It is possible that he ate of the slaughtered camel, but that is not what the hadith explicitly mentions. --Jibran1 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary may have been inexact, but that's no reason for inserting original research regarding it. I've cleaned it up to state the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you now. The brand of the jizya was on it, so it was already paid. Sorry. Thanks for clearing it up.

This Hadith would appear to nothing to do with this article.Timothy Usher 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A hadith about Jizya has nothing to do with the article on Jizya? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I only meant we don't really learn much about Jizya, other than that it can be paid in camels. I suppose that's not nothing.Timothy Usher 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that, and the jizya livestock was branded, and that it was given to the wives of Muhammed, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism's not very critical

There are only two weak critique's with rebutals.

The Military service argument is as weak as ever, the subduded people could not have weapons and armor incase the revolted against there masters(simple). This has no place in the Criticism section as it is a justification for the jizah NOT a critisism. It should be moved to the Application section, as it is NOT a criticism.

The Jizah=zakat defence is still the imposition of Muslim values on non-muslims, calling it a different name does not make it different. Muslims Choose to pay the zakat in order to be a good muslim, non-muslims are Forced to pay jizah or the will be sent to prison. I'm going to re-edit the criticism section to one that is critical of the concept of Jizah, not the current straw man arguments that are present. Please reply on here not just revert.Hypnosadist 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section looks rather odd in a historical article, and I don't see any place for such a section in this article either. It is just not encyclopedic to shove everything that can possibly be construed as a negative aspect of jizya from today's into a separate section. The article should just state the facts and let the reader decide. Pecher ^Talk 17:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is much better than Dhimmi in which you mix everything the way you liked and no one and understand Dhimmi concept. Please leave this article alone. --- Faisal 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"and no one and understand Dhimmi concept." What do you mean?Timothy Usher 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Criticism" section might be profitably merged with some other section. For now, I've given it a more honest title.Timothy Usher 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Timothy, that was a good idea. Pecher ^Talk 09:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, why don't you copy 'n paste the article to a testpage, and edit it as you like. So we see what you concept of dimma looks like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.233.204 (talk • contribs)

I agree with ibrahimfaisal, you should put your version of dhimmi on a test page. It should be an interesting exercise, as i have never understood what you problem was with dhimmi other than it telling non-muslims of that concept. Atleast this current edit of Jizah places this concept in its right place as a method of Colonialism and racism.Hypnosadist 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a wonderful idea. I have decided to do that. You will see a new Dhimmi article getting started soon In-sha-Allah. --- Faisal 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality has been compromised

When people will notice than this article would become another dispute ground. It is possible that tag similar to the one at the top of Dhimmi article appears on this article too. See what are the changes made in the last few days. They rename critisium on jiya to Humiliating nature of Jizya and remove all the point presenting otherside view. --- Faisal 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, this has already been explained to you - the problem isn't the point of view represented by your material, it's the lack of a reliable scholarly source. Aren't there any such sources that make the points you'd like to make? And if there aren't, could it possibly be because they're not true?

The section was renamed because, if you look at the material therein, it's about humiliation of Dhimmis, not about criticism (which anyhow, shouldn't be corralled into its own section). Are the quoted Muslim authorities now critics of Islam?Timothy Usher 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I got it. www.americanthinker.com is reliable and so is debate.org.uk. But all the websites related to Islam are unreliable. What a justifiable criteria you have. Please make me your student as today I have learned something from you. --- Faisal 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, you've made a good point. www.americanthinker.com and debate.org.uk are hardly reliable sources, but this problem is not rectified by inserting another unreliable source. I'm going to work on improving the article using reliable sources in the near future. Pecher ^Talk 12:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher you could do the same with the text you have deleted. But may be you do not want to? Tell me why should not I delete this all badly referenced topic right now just like you have done? --- Faisal 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the accuracy of that material or what? Pecher ^Talk 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jizya collection in parts of Egypt

I don't know the reliability of this source, but these[11][12]articles from the censored archives of the Middle Eastern Times show at least one way the jizya is being collected. I know it is just a small part of the wide definition of jizya, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Iafrate 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a section on contemporary aspects of jizya, and these articles should fit there. In addition, Hamas has also confirmed that once they establish an independent state, they would require jizya from Jews and Christians. Pecher ^Talk 09:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another example of jizah and dhimmi in the modern world, this should go into a contempory uses section. But first the reliabilty of the Middle East Times should be investigated, as well as sourcing the Jizah comments from Hamas.Hypnosadist 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK here is a hamas offical talking about jizah, this is copyed from american thinker but says where the interview happened, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. "Interviewed by Wall Street Journal reporter Karby Legget (and published in the December 23-26 edition The Wall Street Journal), Hassam El-Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, confirmed the organizations plan to re-institute the humiliating jizya". A transcript would be nice if anyone has WSJ online subscription.Hypnosadist 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• there's a paper from freedomhouse.org, certainly a partial organisation, but the paper is well sourced and extensive. cf p 34-37
• memri.org cites Tunisian researcher Dr. Amel Grami from ManoubaUniversity in Tunis: "It is clear that a country's policy of discrimination is one of the most central factors in harming those of a different faith... Whoever follows the words of the senior [Egyptian] officials discovers that they ceaselessly boast about the rules [set out in Koran 9:29] that oblige the ahl al-dhimma to pay jizya [poll tax] 'with willing submission,' and that they never stop praising the contracts that restrict non-Muslims in the areas of housing, external appearance, performance of their religious rituals, and upkeep of their houses of worship..."
• Al-Ahram Weekly cites Samir Morqos, head of the Coptic Centre for Social Studies: "Indicative of the Gamaa's outlook is its handling of the question of the jizya, or poll tax levied on non-Muslim communities. They approved the Khedive Said's abolition of the jizya ; however, they did so on the grounds that the decree was issued by Egypt's ruler, thus evading a juristic judgement on the concept of jizya itself and leaving the door open to the possibility of revoking that decree"

--tickle me 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Say, Faisal, what do you think of the Jizya collection in Egypt? Fair and square - they don't have to pay the Zakat, right? And they don't have to fight, since the Muslim Brotherhood will protect them.Timothy Usher 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Egypt an Islamic state, where a yucky puppet of USA/CIA is sitting since long time? There is no Islamic state in the world, where Shria is implemented correctly. Understand the meaning of Islamic state first please. An Islamic state is not for some group of people it is for all the Muslims of the world and govern by Caliph. Or you can continue using whatever you like for your propaganda. --- Faisal 07:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the constitutions of Egypt[13], Pakistan[14]and Saudi Arabia[15] (just as an extra example) all refer to Sharia in one way or another. Maybe they are not implememted correctly according to you, but that doesn't change the fact that they are implemented. (If I had the time, I could most likely find several more constitutions where Sharia is mentioned) Iafrate 10:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am Pakistani and I know that except couple of law all the laws are what left by British. Do you think that British law are Islamic? Also my country ruler is secular, who told others to distance themself from Islam. The law which are islamic are not totally islamic but a mixture. Rest is upto you. You can now use Egypt or Pakistani laws and write an Islamic article. For me doing that would be extremely wrong. --- Faisal 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So when a girl from family X is found with a boy of family Y, and a local Sharia court sentences a female relative of boy Y to be gang-raped by relatives of girl X, that's British law? I think not.Timothy Usher 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sharia court that is referred in the above reference by Iafrate is more like an advisory body. And it objective is to change country into an Islamic state. However, no one has ever act on its advice. The supreme court and high courts does not work according to Sharia (also even not called Sharia courts). The Sharia court had given advice Govt. to ban Interest but Govt. had decline to do that. The law about rape is Islamic however NO one ever got any punishment because of that law. It is the only well-known Islamic law in Pakistan and Govt. want to change it too. --- Faisal 10:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh what you are saying Timothy Usher is Jirga. It is not even a court but found in lawless areas (not controled by Pakistan fully). Those people are ignorant and their decision has nothing to do with islam remotely. Please do not insult Islam by associating those things with Islam. I beg you. --- Faisal 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Faisal is right: according to sharia, the girl in question must be put to death by stoning rather than gang-raped. Pecher ^Talk 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why only girl???????????????? Why not also the boy????? And why not you tell that it is only done when 4 people have seen the rape/sex. According to Sharia both (boy and girl) could be stoned to death, if 4 people have seen the intercourse. Also these 4 people should be very reliable persons. This law is implemented in Pakistan. The only famously known islamic law. However, NOT a single person (Guy or a Girl) is ever get punished. --- Faisal 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the jirgas' version of justice is based on ignorance, and is not a good example of Islamic law. My point was only that it's hardly British law. I see what you're saying now - that the official federal law is based on British law.Timothy Usher 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy User, for agreeing first thing with me. May be from now onwards we get agreed more often In-sha-Allah. --- Faisal 18:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to discuss this issue, but you, Faisal, are wrong on all counts. The Pakistani law on adultery is not especially Islamic, not is it the "only famously known"; the law on blasphemy, which prescribes death penalty for insulting Islam or Muhammad, is equally infamous and entirely Islamic. Regarding adultery, 75% of female inmates in Pakistan are those charged with adultery, and most of them happen to be rape victims. Pakistan is one of very few countries in the world that prosecutes victims, not perpetrators of rape. See this report, for example. Pecher ^Talk 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is good to know that now you figure is 75% and previously from your message it looks like it was only females. I do not know from where you got 75% although and hence consider its an orginal-research. No one is ever stoned to death in Pakistan. --- Faisal 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini speech

The following was deleted from the article:"Ayatollah Khumeyni states that dhimmis "have to pay the jizya tax in exchange for the protection they receive and in lieu of the taxes, such as zakat, that only Muslims pay."[16]"

• 1. Note that the website is the official website of "Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting".
• 2. Yes, this appears in the footnote but aren't footnotes written by the scholars themselves? I believe they are "by default" and if one wants to oppose it, the burden of providing the proof is on his side.
• 3. Even "assuming" it wasn't written by Khomeni, this appears in the official website of "Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting". Doesn't this imply its authenticity?
• 4. As for my personal opinion, if one is interested, is that: as testified by the quote from Grand Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi and the statement above, the "main" point of Jizya is not humiliation at all. In the first place it is in exchange for the protection dhimmi’s receive (as the literal meaning of the word shows) and in lieu of the taxes, such as zakat, that only Muslims pay + it is a "sign" of dhimmi's acceptance of Islamic government. In the second place, at least one can say that it is supposed to have a humiliating flavor. Now, depending on the scholar some intensify this humiliating flavor and some take it easy (or making arguments using other verses such as "017.070: Verily we have honoured the Children of Adam.."). It is subjective. Can it be criticized? yes, but in an honest and appropriate way.

Can someone please back up my arguments (1-3) since I am editing wikipedia very infrequently. Thanks.

P.S. The Quote from "Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi":

"The Shia jurist, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi states in Tafsir Nemooneh that the main philosophy of jizya is that it is only a financial aid to those muslims who are in the charge of safeguarding the security of the state and Dhimmi's lives and properties on their behalf" (Tafsir Nemooneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, on verse 9:29) --128.32.39.126 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We have Wikiquote for quotes like that. Pecher ^Talk 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is good to include this in wikiquote as well as this article. Good suggestion! 128.32.39.126 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But why is this interesting enough to be included among few(?) quotes from Khomeni in Wikiquote? 128.32.39.126 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take this Out

The article says: It was of course, evident that the tax represented a discrimination and was intended, according to the Koran's own words, to emphasize the inferior status of the non-believers. It seemed, however, that from the economic point of view, it did not constitute a heavy imposition, since it was on a sliding scale, approximately one, two, and four dinars, and thus adjusted to the financial capacity of the taxpayer. This impression proved to be entirely fallacious, for it did not take into consideration the immense extent of poverty and privation experienced by the masses, and in particular, their persistent lack of cash, which turned the 'season of the tax' into one of horror, dread, and misery.

There is no Quranic Ayat that talk about humilating Dhimmi. Hence either present Ayat or above text should be deleted. --- Faisal 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, see the word "sagharoon" in verse 9:29. Sagharoon, I think is derived from "saghara" (which means "small") so, I guess saghiroona should mean "to bring low" (one translation says "subdued", other one "brought low" and the third one "being in the state of subjection"). I don't know arabic but check it out with an Arabic native speaker to see if "sagharoon" is exactly the same as "humuliated" or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.26.157 (talk • contribs)

No it is not. See the differnt traslations of 009.029. It only means that fight until they accept jizya. It does not remotly has a meaning that one has to humilate non-Muslims everytime when taking Jizya. I think that author has misunderstood that Ayat. --- Faisal 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's unacceptable to remove sourced material just because you disagree with it. Pecher ^Talk 20:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source talk about Quran in support of his humiliation regarding jizya. If there is no such evidence/Ayat in Quran then your source is lying and it should be removed. --- Faisal 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's your original research, and it is completely irrelvant on Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay then I will report this paragraph too. --- Faisal 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to report the quote's originator as well. He happens to be one of those "Jew writers" of yours, so that might come handy. --tickle me 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That was only referring to Bernad Lewis. As he is famously known as biased among Muslims. --- Faisal 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Any academic who is as prominent as Bernard Lewis and who writes on controversial subjects is bound to recieve such criticism, in fact the accusations that have been levied against him are comparitively mild to what has been said about people like Edward Said. Bernard Lewis is an authortative source on the matter and is obviously an acceptable reference.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If a paragraph of disputed material is not eliminated, then the article must provide appropriate context so readers can understand the dispute. Bernard Lewis's personal views ought to be designated to a 'criticism' section, or refer to a specific interpretation or example of jizya (e.g.: jizya in 17th century Medina), or be balanced with a dissenting opinion (such as Edward Said). Yes, it's undeniable that there will be disagreements over disputed material, but it doesn't mean that one side should get to inflict its views on the other. That goes both ways. 65.95.156.212 16:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw this mentioned on WP:RS, and looked up the Goitein quote at an archive (subscription). The issues:

• The quote in the online article has slightly misquoted the archived text. I assume the archive takes precedence?
• There is a footnote referring to 9:29 (and works by Cl. Cahen and Fr. Rosenthal)
• The economic hardship implied in the quote relates to a particular place and time period in the article. One additional sentence will, I think, provide appropriate context.

Gimmetrow 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources Required!

If you want to add to this article it has to be from a notable and verifiable source! Please stop adding unsourced matterial as it is vandalism to keep doing that!Hypnosadist 18:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed again - please source these claims to reliable sources. Tewfik^Talk 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's even worse; where previous citations actually existed, it's now falsely attributing stuff to them! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Truthpedia this section is about your edits Hypnosadist 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) My entries are all sourced. Stop removing sourced materials. --Truthpedia 16:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The source you have added is not notable and does not even say what you say it does!Hypnosadist 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is about jizya, not zakat, and the insertions are still filled with unsourced claims (e.g. "However such practices are absent in the history. Most of the Sunni Muslim scholars do not follow Zamakhshari's thaughts."). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources are Imam Malik and Dr Qaradawi. Both are notablea and do exactly say what I say they do. Jizya is in contrast to Zakat, and that has to be mentioned. Zamakhshari belongs to the Mutazila school not the sunni school. --Truthpedia 18:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jizya is jizya, zakat is zakat. This article is about jizya. Please provide some specific reliable sources for your claims. I note that the sources in the article itself contradict much of what you have been inserting. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that This article is about jizya, which is in contrast of Zakat. Mentioning that does not change the article. Also explain how the sources are contradicting!! --Truthpedia 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If people are looking for good sources, there is a book by Courbage & Fargues, French academics, translated into English. I have used a paragraph or two on the dhimmi page. I have been meaning, when I have time, to look it up and use it here, but if anyone else has time to do that it would be very appropriate. Book is scholarly and neutral, perhaps a little out of date. Itsmejudith 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Truthpedia you are now removing sourced material, adding Original Research and adding POV's to the way facts are presented and have been reverted again. Please read the wikipedia editiing policies.Hypnosadist 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Truthpedia, you haven't sourced any of your claims, not one. Provide a link, a book name and a page, something! Also, you keep breaking other links, removing items from the references, and inserting material that directly contradicts or misrepresents sourced material in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I did support my claims. They are sourced with reputable scholars quotes such as Malik and Qaradawi. You on the other side faild to show any real reason why these items make contradictions. If you need a source of any claim that is not already souced, if any, put the fact tag, and I will be happy to add another reference. --Truthpedia 18:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, again, you haven't provided any actual sources; a specific work, or a page number. For example, you keep inserting this claim: However such practices are absent in the history. Most of the Sunni Muslim scholars do not follow Zamakhshari's thaughts. Not only have you not sourced that original research to anything, but the article itself documents this happening in the late 19th century! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of a short ban for truthpedia to get the message through, please!Hypnosadist 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Islami, please stop reverting the page, and please supply sources instead of removing them. Perhaps you could explain here what it is you are trying to accomplish? Tewfik^Talk 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will delete any statment that was not supported by Truthpedia. I am mainly concern with your recent POV wording. --Islamic 05:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And you will get reverted if the edits are unsourced or misrepresent sources as they have done before.Hypnosadist 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Other article

You all might be interested to read The_Quran_and_science. Arrow740 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz's insertions

Aminz, I've incorporated your insertions into the article, and cleaned up some of the English and the references, giving their full name etc. However, I wasn't able to figure out which specific Lewis works you were referring to, could you be more explicit? Also, when you're quoting directly from a work you have to put the material in quotation marks; I've done that for the sentence "entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression and being exempted from military service", but please make sure you do it for any other direct quotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was refering to "Lewis, Bernard (2002). The Arabs in History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280310-7." and "Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00807-8." --Aminz 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to Zakat

I've removed this addition to the Talk: page:

This is in contrast to the 2.5% Zakat tax Muslims are obliged to pay, but from which non-Muslims are exempt.

The article itself is about jizya, not zakat, so the insertion of discussion of an entirely different tax in the introduction is jarring, to say the least. We don't, for example, discuss the kharaj in the introduction, which is another tax imposed on dhimmis, and often closely related to it. Even worse, it is quite clearly classic original research in that it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Who "contrasts" jizya with zakat in this way, aside from the editors of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Jizya is for non-Muslims and Zakat for Muslims. Both facts are referenced. You don't need to be smart to figure out that they are in contrast as the two words Muslim and non-Muslim are in contrast. My Advice: Get a class in logic. --Truthpedia 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The body of the article should contain some sourced reference to the simple fact that jizya is the name given to zakat when it is forced on to non-muslims. Hence why jizya is paid insted of zakat, but this would have to be discussed in the body of the article and sourced.Hypnosadist 17:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS read the policy wp:or truthpedia. Hypnosadist 00:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I note repeated attempts to remove referenced and sourced information under various pretenses, and in addition hide these attempts among other edits, use deceptive edit summaries, etc. The more you try to hide it, the more you draw attention to it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As they are going to keep forceing this irrelvancy into the intro i've clarified it!Hypnosadist 21:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole taxation question is discussed *at great length* by Courbage & Fargues. It is very complicated and changed over time. *When* I have time I will go and read that book again and make more notes. In the meantime, can't anyone else get access to it? Or there are many, many other academic sources. Itsmejudith 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They are very much related and tell that Muslims also have to pay Zakat. Muslims are not getting free ride also. I cannot get the logic of this removal and going to put it back. --- ابراهيم 08:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who besides you says they are "very much related"? Please re-read the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

After about ten seconds of research I discovered that Dr. Sano Koutoub Moustapha, Professor of Jurisprudence & Its Principles at the International Islamic University, Malaysia does, is one notable person who makes the same comparrison. "Jiziyah.. is equal to Zakah that the rich Muslims must pay." --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, a bulletin board? Does he have any published books? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my word.. Jay, are you seriously attempting to suggest that the professor of Islamic Jurisprudence (and its principles) at the International Islamic University Malaysia is not notable? - Come off it!! - also, that was a Transcript, not a "bulletin board", but thats rather irrelevent. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this guy, and neither do you; you're only supporting him because you found him in a web search. As for the "transcript", yes, though it looked like a bulletin board, it may well be a transcript of a net chat. So what? Why not find some real sources for this stuff? A book by a recognized historian, for example - that would be lovely. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also that book should be written in English only and by some western. Otherwise its neutrality will be in question. --- ابراهيم 15:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but anyone can pull up a webpage with the POV they want; do you think we should quote from this webpage, for example? Because it pretty much debunks the jizya vs. zakat thing. Perhaps you now see why verifiable statements from reliable sources are so important. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't know anything about him in particular. I did know about the University though, and its a well established one at that. I found about him after ten seconds of research, when I read this PDF document. He is notable, very notable on this subject in fact. For what its worth, the wikipedia policy on Notability does not mention excluding people because Jayjg does not "know anything about" them. The fact is he is notable, the Uni at which is a professor is notable, and it supports directly the qualification made by ابراهيم --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody help me in Finding online tafseer of Abdullah Yusuf Ali? I read it hard copy a while ago but not able to find the online version. Any help will be appreciated. --- ابراهيم 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Three points to help move this forward

1) Albert Hourani, an acceptable academic source, yes? In History of the Arab Peoples p19 he describes the expansion of Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet.

"Beyond the towns, Muhammad's peace stretched over a wide area. Tribal chiefs needed agreements with him because he controlled the oases and markets. The nature of the agreemtns varied; in some cases there was alliance and renunciation of conflict, in others acceptance of the prophethood of Muhammad, the obligation of prayer and the regular giving of financial contributions. "

What Hourani is doing is to describe under the same umbrella language the conversion to Islam of certain tribes AND the acceptance of what would eventually become known as "dhimmi" status by others who did not convert. Therefore also equating in the phrase "the regular giving of financial contributions" both jizya and zakat.

This should be enough to justify here pointing out that while non-Muslims historically paid jizya, Muslims paid zakat, two uncontrovertible facts.

2) If people want to search further, here is a publications list for Professor Sano Koutoub Moustapha (also an acceptable academic source)

-The Lexicon of Fiqh Terms: Arabic, English and French, co-author. Dar al-Nafaes,Beirut-Lebanon, 1996, 644 pages.

- “Al-Nuzum al-Ta'aliimiyyah al-Waafidah Fi Afriqiyaah” (The Alien Educational Systems in Africa: Towards a Civilizational Alternative). Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Qatar 1998, 137 pages.

- “Mu`ujam Mustalahaat Usuul al-Fiqh: Arabic/ English”. (The Lexicon of Islamic Jurisprudence Terms. Arabic/English), Dar al-Fikr, Syria, 2000, 484 pages.

- “Al-Istithmaar: Ahkaamuhu wa Dhawaabituho” (The Investment: Its Rulings and principles in Islamic Fiqh), Dar al-Nafaes, Jordan, 2000, 246 pages.

- “Adawat al-Nazar al-Ijtihaadi al-Manshuud fi Dhaw al-Waa'i al-Mu'aasir” (The Means of Contemporary Ijtihad), Dar al-Fikr, Syria, 2000, 206 pages.

-“Al-Muddakhkharat: Ahkaamuh, wa Turuq Takwiinyhaah, wa Istithmaarihaah” (The Savings, its Rulings, Accumulation and its Investment in Islamic Jurisprudence), Dar al-Nafaes, 2000, 406 pages.

-“The Sale of Debt as Implemented by the Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia”, International Islamic University, Malaysia, 2001, 75 pages.

-Lexicon of Hajj and `Umrah Terms: Arabic & English, Dar Tajdeed, Kuala Lumpur, 2001, 584 pages.

3) Perhaps more relevant to the dhimmi article, but could be of general interest to readers of this talk page, an article that confirms and expands the article by al-Qattan cited on the dhimmi page:

Title: The economic ascent of the Middle East's religious minorities: The role of Islamic legal pluralism Author(s): Kuran T Source: JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 33 (2): 475-515 JUN 2004 Language: English Cited References: 118 Times Cited: 2 Abstract: In the nineteenth century, the Middle East's Christian and Jewish minorities registered conspicuous economic advances relative to the Muslim majority. These advances were made possible by the choice of law available to non-Muslim subjects. Until the late eighteenth century, on matters critical to financial and commercial success, non-Muslims tended to exercise this privilege in favor of Islamic law, and this pattern prompted their own court systems to emulate Islamic legal practices. However, as Western Europe developed the legal infrastructure of modern capitalism, vast numbers of Christians and Jews made jurisdictional switches by obtaining the protection of European states. Along with tax concessions, they thus gained the ability to conduct business under Western laws.

Itsmejudith 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. And what about kharaj? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, as detailed above, Jayjg does not accept Professor Sano Koutoub Moustapha as an acceptable source. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a "MINOR" edit on that. --- ابراهيم 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I have used the same reference that was there but deleted by Jayig. The only difference was that it was written in short form. Now I have put same things in quotes. I wish if he could seen the reference before going to delete it then we might never have this useless edit war. --- ابراهيم 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, when we list about two dozen hadith related to jizya, but you've decided to quote a very specific one in the lead? Not only that, but you've decided to quote very selectively from it. Again, this article is about jizya, and the lead is going to be about jizya, not zakat, or kharaj, or any other Muslim tax. Unless you provide a good reason to keep this other detailed material that is already given elsewhere in the article, it will soon be going again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I put each and every hadith in the introduction about Jizya from that book? Will it satisfy you? I could do that. Also if you will delete it then it will come back the moment you will delete it. Also Remember you will be deleting a referenced material from a BOOK SECTION called JIZYA. I will also report you whereever I could, for that deletion. I cannot assume good faith towards you anymore. You said website is not acceptable we give you a book. Now book is also not acceptable? How much more unreasonable you could be. --- ابراهيم 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've said from the start that the lead needs to be about jizya, not about other taxes, since the article itself is about jizya. That's perfectly good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The section of BOOK is about Jizya. The haidth is about Jizya. Should it has all words Jizya jizya jizya ... in it and nothing else? --- ابراهيم 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of things said about jizya; they don't all belong in the lead, do they? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who give you authority to decide what should be there and what should be not? For me, Islami, Irishpunktom and many others it should be there. Any thing that defend Islam should not be there? WHY ? --- ابراهيم 21:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You first said you are deleting it because reference make no connection with Jizya. We provide the connection. Now you are deleting it for some other reason. That show your good faith? Why you are changing your reasons to deletion? --- ابراهيم 21:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first reason I gave in this section for removing the sentence was The article itself is about jizya, not zakat, so the insertion of discussion of an entirely different tax in the introduction is jarring, to say the least. We don't, for example, discuss the kharaj in the introduction, which is another tax imposed on dhimmis, and often closely related to it. I think that's pretty clear; zakat shouldn't be discussed in the introduction. As for who I am, I'm an editor who happens to have contributed an awful lot to this article, almost 200 edits, far more than any other editor of this article. I'm also the guy who sourced and entered all the hadith referenced in this article, including the very one you tried to insert into the lead: [17], which I did a year and a half ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Does not matter. I created The Quran and science but they deleted all of its contents. Count my edits they might be also more than 200 in that article. I did not said to anyone that I own it do not delete its contents or change it. I work like other contributers. Similarly with all other articles I have created, I am just simple contributer in them. I do not own them and I will like if you too also behave like this please. Making more edits in this article does not give you extra powers on it. It is commonly said by non-muslims (including the site whose address you mentioned) that Jizya is an oppression ignoring the fact that usually it is less than Zakat and non-Muslims do not have to pay Zakat. Hence that will go in the Introduction. If you need more references than I could try to find more but it will stay there. --- ابراهيم 22:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And you as usual forget that jizah is imposed by a invading army and that most Jews and Christians had their own versions of zakat (called titheing in the case of christians) that they had to pay as well to their community because none of the jizah was spent on the dhimmi. Oh sorry yes your right, the jizah helped pay for the army that oppressed them.Hypnosadist 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What doesn't matter? I don't own the article, I'm pointing out that I've studied the subject, and contributed a great deal to it. As for the "oppression" view, this article does not state that, nor did I use that website as a source for this article, which you should have noticed and appreciated. You keep insisting on inserting original research in the lead to fight something that this article simply doesn't state. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again original research. How could be it an original research? When I QUOTED it word by word from a reliable BOOK. The book SECTION was explicitly about JIZYA and so was THAT HADITH. Then please explain me or any sensable person that how it was an original research? --- ابراهيم 22:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to present an argument that jizya isn't oppressive, it's just an alternative to zakat. However, the article doesn't state that jizya is oppressive, that's just something you've invented. Cherrypicking specific quotes to make an argument is still original research. In any event, the article is about jizya, not zakat. While the article can (and certainly does) mention zakat, it's not something that belongs in the lead. And while it might be possible to come to any number of compromises about the article content, it will almost certainly be impossible so long as User:Truthpedia continues to vandalize the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who will decide that if other stuff is not Cherrypicked by you? It is great now I know the art of say every thing an original-research (does not matter if it is referenced or not). If one does not like it then he can mark it as original-research, one way or other. --- ابراهيم 07:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, i do not appreciate this being referred to as a "pov edit", when it is nothing of the sort. it is accurate and concise. ITAQALLAH 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It removes the information that the tax money is not used for the benifit of the non-muslims just the muslim community. With your edit it can be read that the money is redistributed to the dhimmi poor, this is not the case.Hypnosadist 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

do you have a citation for the assertion that the state used tax to benefit the Muslim community exclusively? ITAQALLAH 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question BUT if Jizya not used to benefit of the Muslims WHY they demand for it or be attacked? Say attack them until they pay the jizya which I think is meaning 'the compensation.' That make no sense to say its being used to helping the dhimmi. How can it be the compensation if its not helping the people to be compensated?Opiner 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"compensation" would most likely refer to the compensation for not paying the zakat tax which the muslims pay, as well as being exempt from conscription in jihad as would be obliged upon every adult male muslim according to islamic jurisprudence. the money is paid to the state => money benefits the state and can be used in numerous ways- which does not imply that the money benefits muslims to the exclusion of dhimmah, as the latter also happen to live under the state. there is seemingly no solid evidence i know of suggesting that only one section of the community benefits from taxation. ITAQALLAH 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are begging and evading to the question! WHY attack until pay Jizya to begin with, then guarantee defense? Instead of leaving them alone! Itd be like France attack Spain until payment 'because' Spain doesnt France army conscript, disarm them, then say compensation for defending them! Actually word Jizya is like this, victor in battle getingt compensation for not killing the defeated. AND reading the Muslim record show its thought about like the TRIBUTE, not the regular taxing for benefit of society. Quran too say NOTHING about helping the non-Muslim (actually say non-Muslim should suffer) or about taxation. Just say, attack the non-Muslim until the pay money to the Muslims.Opiner 03:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

however, that is merely your perspective. as i just stated: "there is seemingly no solid evidence i know of suggesting that only one section of the community benefits from taxation." if you can find a scholarly, acceptable source which establishes otherwise, please do provide it. ITAQALLAH 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is another view in Mizan under Islamic Law of Jihad, as Jizya is discussed in the same verse in which polytheists of Arabia were asked to be persecuted ^{[Quran 9:29]}, Ghamidi believes that it was a punishment for the People of the book. Dhimmi was a second class citizenship and Jizya was their punishment for not accepting the truth. Hence he further writes, "Consequently, this is absolutely certain that fighting those who have deliberately rejected the truth and forcing the vanquished to lead a life of subjugation by imposing Jizyah on them is no longer allowed. No one after the Prophet (sws) and his worthy Companions (rta) has the authority to wage war on these grounds or to subjugate the conquered by imposing Jizyah on them. After them, the sole ground of war for Muslims is injustice and oppression." From this view, Jizya is not equivalent to Zakah at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Truthpedia's latest edits

There are many issues with Truthpedia's latests edits, which he and Islami have been attempting to edit war into the article against and without Talk: for weeks now. These include:

• Use of http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=176 . This anonymous website does not even qualify as an external link, much less a reliable source.
• Insertion of the phrases "sometimes mendatory to the Muslims" and "as were the Muslims refusing to pay Zakat". This is being attributed to Stillman, Norman: The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Since Stillman never said this, it's a deliberate falsification.
• Removal of the phrase "author of one of the standard commentaries"; since this is specifically what the source Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam, and since that is what the footnote is specifically there to show, its removal is essentially vandalism.
• Insertion of "According to Moshe Gil, a historian at Tel Aviv University" is unnecessary and unduly skeptical. The source is clearly given, and there is no question that this is factual.

Until these issues are discussed or dealt with, the proposed insertions are unacceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to cite if it is for obvious things, such as Jizya is substitution for zakat, and jizya is entitled to nonmuslim's benefit. See you later, Jayjg!Nielswik_(talk) 07:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You do need to cite anything that is challenged, and you definitely can't claim citations have said things they haven't. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jizya's role as substitution and its benefits are arguably known to many Muslims, certainly not to most non-Muslims. --tickle me 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we could cite about Jizya and Zakat from hadith exact wording (no hanky panky). But still it according to you an original-research because we "cheery picking" it. Hence there is NO way you could be satisfied because you call each and every edit (you do not like) referenced or not referenced as original-research/POV. Lastly why it is not relevant to mention "According to Moshe Gil, a historian at Tel Aviv University"? It is additional useful information and why you are willing to fight an edit war on it? I know if I will provide you references for that even then you will revert it back. Tell me if you revert thing with references and label each edit (with references) as original research then what is left behind to talk? --- ابراهيم 13:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please respond to the issues raised? Why are you attributing statements to people who never made those statements? As for Gil, the "useful information" is there, in the footnote. We certainly don't name every single person's who provides a source for content on the page; it would be impossible to read if we did. Why single out Gil? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not in favor of changing referenced material and do not support changing Stillman, Norman. I might have reverted it once in reaction of your revert because you are not letting us put referenced material in the introduction which is not good. --- ابراهيم 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he think moses Gil's prophet too?Opiner 01:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Moses is my prophet too and you do not own him. --- ابراهيم 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Which of his prophecies do you follow? Which are you even aware of? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

For references drawing connection between Jizya and Zakat, see

Israel's Place in the Middle East: A Pluralist Perspective, University Press of Florida Press, p.36

which says: "In this way, the jizya may be seen not as a levy of penalty for religious nonconformity but as a kind of substitute for zakat."

or "The History of Government from the Earliest Times", Oxford University Press, p. 715

Cheers, --Aminz 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They know it is there, but they cannot accept the truth. --Truthpedia 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

please read them in books.google.com --Aminz 04:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well! history shows that Jews lived more peacefully with paying Jizya than under Christian rulers, this is why we find such quotes from Jewish side, but the way Qur'an talks about Jizya shows punishment. and I have given an opinion on this before in above thread. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia of Quran on the jizya tax says: "The Arabic term jizya used for the poll tax ... does have a Qur'anic origin... There is no evidence in Quran, however, of a tax per head as assumed by later jurists. The tax per capita as finally established in Islamic law seems to have derived from a Sassanid practice...." --Aminz 05:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you conforming to what I wrote in previous thread that generalization of jizya as tax by Islamic jurists is not an Islamic injunction? TruthSpreader^Talk 06:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

just that the details were not mentioned in quran. I think the subjection that the quran is talking about in 9:29 just means Dhimmi's subjugation to the Muslim law and following it. Nothing more. --Aminz 09:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for nagging, but 9:29 says, "...until they pay the Jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." So it means this Jizya (i.e. monatory hardship) is acknowledgement of their subjugation. So when you quoted from Encyclopedia of Qur'an that, "There is no evidence in Quran, however, of a tax per head as assumed by later jurists.", does it imply that there is difference of opinion in definition of who is Dhimmi, i.e. the later generation of non-Muslims were not Dhimmis!!!! and if not then what is the difference between poll tax which is Qur'an talking about and tax per capita which was formulated later by jurists. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the following may and seen are the important weasel words "In this way, the jizya may be seen not as a levy of penalty for religious nonconformity but as a kind of substitute for zakat." it is also implicit from the grammar that "a levy of penalty for religious nonconformity" is the standard interpritation and substitute a reframe to make it look better.Hypnosadist 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics

The sentence "Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes" (but now lower under the Muslim rule [2])" needs to be dePOVed. That the tax was a continuation of warlier regimes might Esposito's opinion, but it is not fact. It is only intended for apologetical reasons. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry but it is not quoted from Esposito. --Aminz 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

how do you know it is not a fact? --Aminz 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good deletions

[18] I saw this edit & thought "what a good deletion". Then I remembered a few vandals/POV-pushers, backed by Jayjg. Anyways , I thought the editers might get some important text from this vandalised version, see the sections & links . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)