Talk:Jizya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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[1][2]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[3], Pakistan[4]and Saudi Arabia[5] (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."[6]"

• 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: [7], 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)

First, the footnote cites Esposito as the source. Aminz says it was not Exposito who wrote this. So the sentence is wrongly attributed, and this should be corrected. Second, I agree with Str1977 - this really is just POV. Esposito - who IS cited as the source - is notorious for his POV treatment of this issue. In any case, such a claim as this is impossible to prove factually. What kind of historical evidence could be used to show that millions of dhimmis across the Islamic world, across centuries, consistently regarded the jizya as a continuation of past taxes? Islamic views of the jizya's meaning can be demonstrated - from legal textbooks. But this claim about dhimmi beliefs concerning the jizya - pure POV. This sentence should be removed. Eagleswings 07:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Esposito is a leading academic in this field, therefore a reliable source in the WP sense, and whatever he says can be summarised here. I expect Aminz will do this when he has time. It would really help - and save time - if editors would not accuse others of "apologetics". As an excellent editor pointed out to me in another context, it is not up to WP either to apologise or to condemn. We simply reflect accurately what the researchers have found out. Itsmejudith 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If we don't give creadence to academic views on global warming if they are paid for by oil companies then why should we give creadence to an academic who's views are bought and paid for by the largest promoter of Wahabism in the world? He is no less biased than Bat Ye'or or Spencer.Hypnosadist 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Esposito in the pockets of wahhabis? Tell me more, that is interesting news to me. --Striver 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From John Esposito's wikipage; Esposito's organization is the recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Tala of Saudi Arabia to promote Muslim-Christian dialogue. Notice its not to support accurarte and rigorus academic study and critic of islam.Hypnosadist 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That does not in anyway makes him biased. Almost all of his books were written before that endowment. --Truthpedia 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He was biased before the endowment (hence why him of many scholars got it) and owned after it. I just want his bias noted and accounted for in the editing of this page, especially when his opinions are stated as facts!Hypnosadist 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

lol, 20 million dollars? If not owned, so ... something. You dont get 20 millions for nothing. --Striver 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a reference from Lewis as well. I think that would be enough. --Aminz 06:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good deletions

[8] 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)

Please remain civil, and please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

backed by Jayjg isnt a personal attack, its a fact . Anyways thats not the point . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a personal attack, whether or not you regard it as "a fact". And describing editors as zionists/vandals/POV-pushers is even worse. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5