Talk:Jizya/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Five pence

Article currently contains the following statement:

Niaz A. Shah states, "[t]here is no fixed amount but it may be as paltry a sum as five pence in the United Kingdom." [Shah 2008, p. 19]

This was twice deleted by anon User:94.174.208.161 with edit comment "nonsensical statement , no verifiable link" and "The Jizya tax is not paid in the United Kingdom. This is a nonsensical entry."

It was restored by User:Eperoton with edit comment "Not a valid reason for removing properly cited text. See WP:V" and restored by single-issue editor User:Yuri321 with edit comment "It is clearly a hypothetical statement. As said previously, you have not offered a valid reason for removing this material."

I agreed with the anon that this is a nonsensical statement, and deleted it, with edit comment "this statement, without context, is meaningless". Yuri321 reverted, with the comment "On the contrary, it is clearly hypothetical, hence the author's use of 'may' (expressing possibility). If you dispute this, take it to the Talk page instead of engaging in WP:EW.)"

Comments:

• Accusing me of WP:EW on my first edit seems a bit strange, since previous editors (one an SPA) have made several reverts without going to Talk.

• WP:V is a necessary but not sufficient condition for including content. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in the article.

• The main problem with this statement is that it is presented with no context making it meaningful. Clearly there is no jizya imposed in the UK. In the original source, this is equally unclear and doesn't clarify matters. I think it is intended to mean that the jizya could be as little as the equivalent of 5p. But it would be better to find a clearer and more definitive source. This aside is not a strong source for the statement.

• As for this being a hypothetical statement, that makes it even less meaningful.

• If this statement stays in the article, it would make more sense to paraphrase it sensibly, and footnote, something like:

The amount of jizya may be minimal, as little as the equivalent of 5p (UK). [footnote Shah]

• Including the source author's name in the main text is inappropriate unless there is some comparison of sources.

--Macrakis (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As someone who's familiar with the history of Yuri's participation on this page, I'll start by noting that I think the link to the WP:SPA essay is misplaced here because his contributions haven't shown any of the issues discussed there. I reverted the first removal attempt because of the edit summary, but I'm personally sympathetic towards not including this statement. The possible implication that jizya is imposed in the UK didn't seem like a likely interpretation to me, but that is certainly a point to consider if other editors find it to be confusing. I also have a broader problem with this statement. I doubt the author simply made up the number, so it may be true for some historical instance of jizya and British penny, but as an attempt to engage a casual reader's intuitions it's grossly misleading. As a quick gut check, the usual minimal rate of jizya was one dinar which is a substantial amount (its standard weight of 4.25 gram of gold now costs about $170 US), while 5 pence is currently about 6 cents US. This observation in itself is not sufficient grounds for removing the statement, but I think it's relevant to making a call on whether to include it in the article. As Macrakis notes, the citation points to a passing comment and not an authoritative discussion of the question, so we aren't obliged to reflect this source if we don't think it helps the reader. Eperoton (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

By linking to SPA, I'm not saying that Yuri is editing tendentiously (I haven't reviewed his edits), but simply that he has edited only on this one article.

The wording of this phrase is poor and unclear. Though it's unlikely to mean that a jizya of 5 pence could be appropriate in the UK, it's intended sense is, as far as I can tell, "there are times and places where the jizya has been as little as 5p...". Compare a sentence like: "A hamburger may cost as little as $1 in the US". This means that there exist restaurants in the US where it costs that little.

But the statement remains problematic. Where was this recorded? Was it common or exceptional? What was a penny worth at that time?

It would be much better to cite specific times and places, e.g., (made-up example) "In Ottoman Yokistan from 1850–1865, the jizya was 20 Ottoman kuruş, which at the time was a week's wages for a common laborer in Yokistan."

--Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have parsed the statement again and, on reflection, agree that it is ambiguous. Of course, any suggestion that the jizya is currently collected in the United Kingdom is ludicrous, and I don't suppose any reasonable reader would come away with that impression, so that is not (to my mind) the issue. The formulation of the sentence seems to imply that such a sum would be adequate at an unspecified point in the future, hence "five pence in the United Kingdom", which indicates a spatial dimension, rather than, say, "five British pence", which would simply denominate a currency. Similary, the use of "may" seems to indicate temporality. Still, I grant that it is entirely plausible that the author instead meant that five pence could be a modern equivalent to the historical jizya price, and I do not have access to the original source so I do not know whether the author clarifies or qualifies his statement. If anyone could furnish us with said context, we would be able to resolve our dilemma in short order. Yuri321 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

As Eperoton and I mentioned above, the statement is presented in Shah's book with no helpful context. Page 19 happens to be available in the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon for Shah's book, so you can check it out yourself. --Macrakis (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I have no objection to removing it. Yuri321 (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Qayyim on ‘an yadin wa-hum ṣāghirūn

I read in the article that it is reported Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's interpretation of 'wa-hum ṣāghirūn'. It would be correct to add also his interpretazion of ‘an yadin. And it is this:
"An yadin describes a state (hal), i.e. they must give the jizya while they are humiliated and oppressed (adhilla-maqhurin). This is the correct (al-sahih) interpretation of the verse. Some said that the meaning is "from hand to hand, in cash,not on credit". Others said: "From his hand unto the hand of the receiver, not sending it nor delegating its payment." Others said: "It means due to a benefaction on your part unto them by agreeing to receive payment from them." But the accurate opinion is the first one, and the people are agreed on it. The most far-fetched opinion that misses God's intention is that of those who say that the meaning is: "Out of their ability to pay it, which is why [the jizya ] is not collected from those who can't afford it". This rule is correct, but its application to the verse is wrong. No one of the Companions of the Prophet and of the Successors interpreted it in this manner nor anyone of the old masters of the umma. It is only the witty inference of some later scholars."
This is from Uri Rubin, “Qur'an and poetry: more data concerning the Qur'anic jizya verse ('an yadin),” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 31 (2006), p. 146. (https://www.academia.edu/5644691/_Qur_an_and_Poetry_More_Data_Concerning_the_Qur_anic_jizya_Verse_an_yadin_)
I think that only reporting both meanings the reader could understand correctly Ibn Qayyim's opinion on this verse. It is also important to note that he states this is the sahih interpretation.
The paper by Rubin is one of the most recent on the interpretation of this verse, so it would also be useful to add in the article his conclusions.--Domics (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this interpretation shouldn't be omitted. I'm not sure if you're thinking of hadith grades; here sahih simply means "correct". This is a standard form of classical commentaries: the author lists various opinions and then notes which one he supports. The variety of viewpoints on these verses are difficult to integrate concisely. Too bad Rubin's earlier paper on this topic isn't available online; here he doesn't comment on this passage. Also, "people" is probably a mistranslation of jumhur, which in this context means a scholarly majority, but this is OR on my part. Eperoton (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you say "protection" ?

"Historically, the Jizya tax has been understood in Islam as a fee for protection"

Just like in the Mafia ? François-Dominique (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course like the Mafia. Have a look at the original idea of the mafia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.146.158.229 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jizya

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jizya's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Copland2013":

• From Mughal Empire: Ian Copland; Ian Mabbett; Asim Roy; et al. (2013). A History of State and Religion in India. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-136-45950-4.
• From Aurangzeb: Ian Copland; Ian Mabbett; Asim Roy; Kate Brittlebank; Adam Bowles (2013). A History of State and Religion in India. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-136-45950-4.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Issues and Vandalism by islamic apologist editors

1. Article is written with islamic apologist WP:POV to whitewash the bad aspect of Jizya by trying to portray in a positive manner in a smartly disguised biased manner. Methods deployed are the use of weasel word to dilute/neutralise and putting text in such order that it justifies jizya while disguising its extortionist use as tool of persecution, humiliation, and coerced conversion of Non-Muslims. For example, the convention is to use the "Criticism" as heading for critiquing the topic but the article uses wiseal words. I have fixed this issue by changing the section heading to crisp an concise "Criticism".

2. 'Article needs to by watched by unbiased editors too. I suspect current watchers might have an "Islamic apologist" inclination. Other unbiased editors need to add this article to their watch list to maintain the due balance and UNBIASED.

3. Vandalism by Islamic Apologist POV editors. Vandal Saad Abdullah1 removed the sourced criticism without explanation here. He has been warned on this talk page here here]. Watch him and other on this article. If they attempt such things again, just ban for the repeat offence. The reason the watchers of this article silently allowed this vandalism to take places reinforces my suspicion raised in point-1 and point-2 (article needs unbiased watchers and current watchers might be biased Islamic apologists). I do not know who the current watchers are, this issue is just a suspicion due to the reason I have already highlighted. Note: I have already reinserted the valid edits removed by this vandal.

4. WP:UNDUE:

• The text within this article which criticises the Jiza has been 'smartly" moved from the article to the notes, creating "undue balane" in favor of justification of Jizya while diluting its nature of extortion and tool of forced conversion to islam." This has not been fixed yet.
• Text in article must be neatly reordered and co-located under a clear headings which separately show "islamic justification" vs "counter criticism".
• Currently there is large text "rationalising" and "justifying" it, with relatively tiny amount of text at the bottom of the section.
• Quotes in support of Jizya are prominently placed within the article, whereas the quotes against the Jizya have been conveniently pushed to the bottom in the form of notes to allow those less DUE BALANCE and diminished readership, this creating a false justification for jizya. Expand the criticism by moving notes to main article, condense the glorification/rationalising/justification.
• Lede has large pro jizya justification and hardly any criticism.
• Editing tags have been inserted to create a "questionable" doubts about the sources which criticise the Jizya. Where as similar "zealous" and "rigorous" attempt has been made verify the validity of the pro-Jizya sources.
• Even reading the TOC gives the impression "rationalise Jizya" "justified in pious Quran", blah blah..and there is not TOC heading that shows "criticism of the Jizya" with subheadings showing features of jizya "persecution/humiliation", "extortion", "coerced conversions to islam", etc. TOC itself should be self-descriptive and all-encompassing summary of the topic, a glance should be enough to get the gist.
• I have made some corrective edits, but those are not yet sufficient to address the above.

5. Article needs review by unbiased editors, further expansion of criticism, include the role of how "money collected from jizya (and zakat too) routed into terrorism financing and link it with the money laundering, Riba, Hawala, FATF blacklist, etc."

6. "Islamic Supremacy" pattern of across articles to neutralise the valid sourced criticism of Islam: There is "long", "ongoing", "systematic" (WP:Disruptive) pattern. Watchers of all these pages might be same or similar "apologist" editors.

For example, Jihad and Jihadism were forked out, though they are the same thing, jihad has an "esoteric inward cleansing" meaning as well as the "legitimised violent jihad including the justification for terrorism and the persecution of Non-Muslims using Jijzya and other tools". There are countless Islamic and other sources which have documented Muslims igniting fanatic religious fervor to rally against No-Muslims such as Islamic invasions and Hindu-Buddhist holocaust of over 100 million or 30% population of the subcontinent. Despite massive evidence that jihad is a VIOLENT TOOL AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS, Jihadism article was created to give out "false" impression that jihad is just "only a passive peaceful" thing while violent Jihad is a recent thing.

Further, those Islamic Apologist editors use the Jihadism article to push others editors to not use the word Jihad in other articles where Muslim terrorists themselves have used the word jihad to justify their terror attacks. This is a systematic dilution.

Moreover, many Apologist Editors also force other editors to not use the word Jihadism for older violent muslims terror attacks which happened prior to the term Jihadism was coined. A term which has been coined recently can be used for the older incidences, such as DNA existed even before scientist gave it a name. Hence the term DNA can be used for study of corpses which predate the creation of term DNA. These are the tools Islamist Apologist editors have been using consistently.

Another example is, repeated earlier deletion and now persistent dilution of Ghazwa-e-Hind article.

Same way there is the pattern of keeping criticism out from Islam related topics such as following:

• Zakat (source of terror funding routed to ISIS, Taliban, UN/EU/USA designated terrorists, Hafiz Saeed, Zakir Naik),
• justification for marital rape,
• pedohilia and child marriages by citing man written self-contradicting book and its verses,
• repeated deletion of articles on Mufa'khathat (intercrural sex and the alleged rape by muhammed of his child bride. Its irrelevant if is happened or not, because but there are huge number of sources to justify this as valid prominent topic for creation of article on wikipedia. Pro/opposing/refuting views can be discussed within the article. Apologist Editors keep colluding to delete the articles and edits on this topic and others remain silent or it just slips under the radar.
• Articles have been named with islamic Supremacist POV e.g. Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, whereas wikipedia convention is 2003 invasion of Iraq, Invasion of Kuwait, Invasion of Normandy, Invasion of Iceland, Invasion of Kuwait, Invasion of Yugoslavia, Invasion of Kagra, and many more, just type "invasion of" in wikipedia search box" for a large list of such articles. If an attempt is made to rename the article to "Islamic invasion of India" (or more self-descriptive "Islamic invasion and holocaust of India"), then the Apologist lobby uses tricks (WP:GAMING) through smartly disguised red herring tricks of WP:BRD], WP:CONSENSUS. Just rename it to based on the "conventional naming practice" (i.e. "invasion of xyz") without the "Islamist Supremacist" tricks.

7. Silence of good people: Fears of other editors and admins of being persecuted by Apologists Admins/editors: Other editors either fear being called as islamophobe or being persecuted by the apologist admins. I am raising this issue here. I have already belled the cat, now lets identify and catch the cats. Caution: especially watch any "apologist admin" who persecutes (targets, bans, stalks, misuses access authority to investigate with the view of banning, etc) other editors or admins for taking up these issues.

8. Reminder - social media and wikipedia as the tools of trade for terrorism: It is well known social media and collaborative platforms, such as wikipedia, are main tools of Isamist terrorists for recruiting terrorists, raising funds, waging misinformation jihad, etc. Be watchful against any infiltrators among the editors and even worse among the admins. This has no personal attack on any specific editor, but this is a hot burning issue which most editors lack courage to raise or discuss. It needs to be tackled head on nonetheless, i.e. to have a robust institutionalised mechanism at wikipedia to oust, expose, and ban the covert operatives and overt terror sympethiser infiltrators. Let us all keep it clean, unbiased, and safe. Thank you.

9. If editors find this pattern or concerns elsewhere, please feel free to pipe/link this post to that discussion to establish "across-articles" pattern and to identify perpetrators, and post the link to that discussion below so that this thread becomes the centralised place to document those instances I have already highlighted above.

10. My "partially remedial" edits here.

11. I have been an IP always. I have no other account. I will revisit this article.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

First, it sounds like you have concerns about this article, and it well may be that some of them are justified and the changes you've made are constructive. I'd like to help ensure that any such changes get WP:CONSENSUS and are reflected in the article. Unfortunately, the way you went about making them aren't making this easy.

• please be sure to follow the core WP policy Assume good faith. Calling other editors "apologist" isn't going to help you improve WP.
• although it sounds like you have some legitimate concerns about this article, it's nearly impossible for other editors to review your changes, because you've changed many things at once, and the diffs show large swaths of text before and after instead of your changes.
• while it's great that you're using the talk page, discussing multiple concerns about multiple articles and the community at large distracts from the specifics changes to the article which you're trying to get consensus for.

Please discuss specific concerns you have about this article and changes you'd like to make one by one here, and try to make your changes in the article incrementally, so that other editors can review them from the diffs. If you have general concerns about the content of Islam-related articles, I'd recommend discussing them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam, and if you have concerns about behavior of other editors, you should consider bringing them up at WP:ANI. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your concern #3 above, referring to this edit, I see no evidence that the sourced cited for that content is reliable, either based on the author or the publisher. We have some solid sources cited for some of these questions here, written by well-known historians and published by major university presses, and admittedly some less strong sources, that are either outdated or associated with advocacy groups, and are only marginally reliable and possibly undue, but that Sharma book doesn't clear even a low reliability plank. Eperoton (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Does any other reliable source say what Sharma is saying? DTM (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Both questions touched upon by Sharma have been debated by specialists, and the debates are covered in the article based on strong, academic sources. I've just removed a rosy assessment from one source (LeBon) which was non-specialist and outdated, and so undue. Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)