Talk:Jizya/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Translations: Ar -> En

As is clear from a basic look at the article, many Ar RSs were used, often with a quote in Ar provided. To comply with WP:NOENG policies one ought to provide complete translations. That's why I thought about posting the relevant quotes and translations here, so as to complete them and ameliorate them. 12:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

---

⑦

 وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ [...] 2 - أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، [...] وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. [...] وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. [...] قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 - أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛

— Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10

Concerning the rate of jizya, [we can discern between] three opinions: 1. That it is a fixed amount that can't be augmented, nor abated, and this is the opinion [as narrated from] Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i; [...] 2. That it isn't fixed, but it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihad (independent reasoning) in [determining whether to make] additions or substractions, al-Ashram said: It was said to Abi 'Abd Allah: So we add or reduce it? Meaning from jizya. He said: "Yes, it is added or substracted according to their (dhimmis) capability, [and] according to what the Imam sees [most fitting] [...] And 'Umar made the jizya into three different layers: 48 dirhams from the rich, 24 dirhams from the middle class and 12 dirhams from the [working] poor. [...] And this indicates that it goes to the opinion of the Imam. [...] al-Bukhari said in his Sahih, ... I said to Mujahid: What is the matter with the people of al-Sham who are required to pay 4 dinars, whereas the people of Yemen [only] pay one dinar? He said: .... [...] 3. That its minimum is rated at one dinar, but its maximum isn't fixed, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr, so it is permitted to add, ...

---

⑧

تزيدات مبتدعة في طريقة استحصال الرسم أو الضريبة التي تسمى الجزية. و في معاملة الكتابيين عموماً، لم نقرأها في القرآن، و لم نجد دليلاً عليها في سنَّة عن رسول الله ﷺ، و إنما ذكرها بعض متأخري الفقهاء. [...] و قد أنكر محققو الفقهاء على إختلاف مذاهبهم، هده التزايدات المبتدعة، و المقحمة في أحكام الشرع و مبادئه، و حذروا من اعتمادها و الأخذ بها

— Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Jihad fī’l-Islām (Damascus: Dar al- Fikr, 2005), pp. 132–3.

Heretical additions in the collection methods of the tax or jizya, and in the common behavior with the People of the Book in general, that we didn't read in the Qur'an, and that we didn't find evidence for in the Sunnah of the Prophet of God - Peace be upon him, but that was mentioned by some later fuqaha (jurists). [...] In fact, investigators of jurisprudence, despite their differences in madhab, have denied and refuted these heretical innovations, that ... and they warned against following and .... it.

---

Relevant discussions goes below:

---

In ⑧, how would one go about translating "محققو الفقهاء"? I usually think of a محقق as the editor of a book, for instance, شرح السنة للبغوي بتحقيق شعيب الأرناؤوط, here (بتحقيق) means that it was edited by Shu'ayb al-'Arna'ut. However this isn't the meaning intended by al-Buti, the closest English expression for (محققو) I can think of is investigators, or examiners, but I don't think it fits closely in this context. What do you suggest here? 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Thanks for the convenient layout. I would go for a more literal even if less idiomatic translation. Here's a start:

1) The amount of jizya is determined in consideration of their economic status, so that more is taken from the prosperous, less from the middle [class], and a very small amount from the poor (fuqara). Those who do not have a means of livelihood or depend on support of others are excused from paying the jizya.

2) The assets given by the dhimmī are called jizya: [...] [it is so named] because it is in recompense for their defense by [the powers of] Islam, and in place of material support for the fighting, and since it is [also] in recompense for what is spent on the poor amongst the dhimmī community (ahl al-dhimma) as ʾImām ʿUmar used to do. [...] Islam established the right of equality between all those who are under its rule; indeed, the jizya required of the dhimmī corresponds to the financial obligations required of the Muslim, including paying zakat on wealth, charitable giving (sadaqat), vows, kaffarat, as well as other things. If all that is taken from the Muslim was calculated, it would become clear that it isn't less than what is taken by way of jizya, if it isn't more. As we have mentioned earlier, the state spends on the poor amongst the dhimmī community, and it is narrated that ʿUmar - May God Almighty be pleased with him - found an elderly Jew begging, so he asked him: ‘Who are you, old man (shaykh)?’ He said, ‘I am a man from the dhimma community.’ So ʿUmar said to him: ‘We have not done justice to you in taking from from you when you were young and forsaking you in your old age’, so ʿUmar gave him a regular pension from the Bayt al-Māl (Public Treasury) [can stop the quote here]

Eperoton (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Well, that was fast! You could directly go and edit the relevant translations, as long as you think that they're fine, this space below is only for questions or queries about these translations, so in this case you could have directly posted 1) in there. In any case, here are my comments on your emendations for 2):

(I added in the quote, "لأنها تجزي أي تقضي؛" )

"[the powers of] Islam" I think Abu Zahra was more thinking of the Islamic community when he said "يدفع الإسلام عنهم", and that's why I rendered it as "the Islamic [community]". I also opted to use the "instead of rendering military service" for "و يكفيهم مئونة القتال", even do it isn't as literal, but at least it wont cause any misunderstandings.

"is [also] in recompense for what is spent on the poor amongst" I think we can use a word other than recompense which in my opinion doesn't fit quiet well, what do you suggest?

For the continuation: "He then said to his servant: “Search for him and those like him, and give them out from the public treasury."

19:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I don't think we know whether Abu Zahra meant Islamic rule or Islamic community by the word "Islam" here, so the safe choice would be to leave that word as it is, without a gloss in brackets. I think مئونة means material support rather than military service (i.e., active participation), does it not? Why do you think "recompense" doesn't fit here? I used it because it's a more precise translation than "return" or "exchange". In any case, we should note the word "jazaa'" in brackets to make clear that it's an etymological explanation. Eperoton (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: But don't you think that (community) would be more convenient than (rule)? Ma'una means in this context, that - كَفَى غَيْرُهُ مَؤُونَتَهُ :- : أَيْ قَامَ مَقَامَهُ أَوْ قَضَى حَاجَتَهُ ., so I don't see how you came to understand it as material support. I think the convenient meaning is: "They fulfilled the obligation of military service instead of their place", so all we have now to do is to find a more literal way to express that. For 'recompense', maybe it's just me but I think that "exchange" or "return" would be equally better, because we're talking about an obligation to be fulfilled as a result of the dhimma contract, and not simply as a 'recompense', if you see what I mean.

3) is complete, do you see any improvements to be made?

4) And I heard a number of the people of knowledge state that al-sighar means that Islamic rulings are enforced on them.

11:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Thanks for the clarification about ma'una. I wasn't aware of that expression and the dictionaries I checked didn't list it. For the other points, what you're suggesting would deviate from the literal meaning a bit too far for my taste. However, I don't think these points are significant in the context of the article, so I'll let you make the call. I'll look at the others later. Eperoton (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: So to sum up some of these changes so far for 2) we would get: And the money that the dhimmī gives is called jizya: Since ... and [it is so named] because it is in return for the protection that they are guaranteed by the Islamic [community], and instead of rendering military service, and since it is [also] in return for what is spent on the poor amongst the dhimmī community (ahl al-dhimma) as ʾImām ʿUmar used to do. [...] and Islam gave the right of equality between all of those who are under its rule, indeed the jizya that is demanded from the dhimmī corresponds to the financial obligations that are compulsory on the Muslim, so he is obliged [to purify] his wealth [through] zakat, and he is required to pay sadaqat and nudhur, and he is duty-bound to give kaffarat, as well as other things. And if all that is taken from the Muslim was calculated, it would become clear that it isn't less than what is taken by way of jizya, if it isn't more. And as we have mentioned earlier, the state spends on the poor amongst the dhimmī community, and it is narrated that ʿUmar - May God Almighty be pleased with him - found an elderly Jew begging, so he asked him: ‘Who are you, old man (shaykh)?’ He said, ‘I am a man from the dhimma community.’ So ʿUmar said to him: ‘We have not done justice to you in taking from from you when you were young and forsaking you in your old age’, so ʿUmar gave him a regular pension from the Bayt al-Māl (Public Treasury), and he then said to his servant: “Search for him and those like him, and give them out from the public treasury.”

Small comment: added some "and"s corresponding to the waws, I used the expression "[to purify] his wealth [through] zakat" instead فعليه زكاة المال , here Abu Zahra used zakat in connotation with al-mal, which is more general than simply stating zakat.

18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Close enough for a footnote. Since the general meaning is preserved, I won't quibble about details. For the next three:

3) would have to pay twice -> would have to pay twice as much; a twice amount -> a double amount

4) your version is fine

5) were upon a religion -> professed a religion

Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Great! But we still have to translate: "لأنها تجزي أي تقضي؛" for 2) I would propose: "Since it is in exchange [for something] ..." not so sure about how to translate: "تقضي"

I shortened a bit 7) to only mention that which was mentioned in the article.

10:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I think تقضي is just meant as a synonym for تجزي here (يقال : قضَى المدينُ الدائن دَينَه : أَدَّاهُ إليه). This phrase doesn't seem to be helpful in the translation, so I would suggest skipping it. For the others:

7) abated -> reduced. The word imam is familiar enough to be left as it is, especially since it means mujtahid rather than ruler here. The part that's untranslated can be skipped, as can the last phrase.

8) additions -> excesses? behavior with -> dealings with. I'm also not sure what محققو الفقهاء means here, exactly, and I don't quite understand المقحمة في أحكام الشرع و مبادئه. We could write something like: fiqh scholars of different madhhabs have rejected these heretical excesses [...] and warned against relying on them and adopting them. Eperoton (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: المقحمة means "injected", here the connotation is negative so it should be taken in consideration in the translation.

10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Rewriting the 'Rate of jizya tax' subsection

As anyone can see this section needs a complete rewrite, since it mentions many different opinions to the detriment of cohesion. To start off this rewriting task I would like to mention here one of the best summaries on the amount of jizya according to the different legal schools, it even mentions the opinion of the Shi'ite Imamite, which is made by Wahbah al-Zuhayli in his book ʾĀthar al-ḥarb fī l-fiqh al-Islāmī : dirāsah muqārinah: (translations aren't perfect, anyone can improve them)

و مما يدل على عدالة الإسلام أنه ترك أمر تقدير الجزية إلى إجتهاد ولي الأمر بحسب ما يرى من حالات اليسار و الفقر في مختلف البيئات و الأزمان، و هذا ما نرجحه لاختلاف المقادير التي رويت في السنه و فعل الصحابة، و هو رأي سفيان الثوري و أبي عبيد و الشيعة الإمامية، و نقل الماوردي: أنه رأي مالك، و هو رواية أيضاً عن أحمد. و نظراً لاختلاف المروي عن الرسول ﷺ ذهب أئمة المذاهب إلى تقدير الجزية و أقلها دينار أو اثنى عشر درهماً.

And amongst [the things] that point to the justice of Islam is that it left the task of evaluating the amount of jizya to the independent reasoning (ijtihad) of the ruler according to what he sees [as suitable] to the conditions of capability and poverty in different places and times, and this explains the difference in the rates [of jizya] that were narrated in the sunnah and the actions of the companions, and this is the opinion of Sufyan al-Thawri and Abi 'Ubayd and the Twelver-Shi'ites, and al-Mawardi narrated: that it was Malik's opinion, and it is also the opinion of Ahmad. And keeping in mind the differences in what was related from the Prophet - Peace be upon him - the Imams of the madhabs went to consider the minimum amount of jizya to be one dinar or twelve dirhams.

— al-Zuḥaylī, Wahbah (1998). ʾĀthar al-ḥarb fī l-fiqh al-Islāmī : dirāsah muqārinah. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr. pp. 702–3. ISBN 1-57547-453-0.

I will also recite the quote from Ibn Qudama (the problem would thus be to find a suitable way to merge between these two sources)

وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ [...] 2 - أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، [...] وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. [...] وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. [...] قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 - أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار

أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛
Concerning the rate of jizya, [we can discern between] three opinions: 1. That it is a fixed amount that can't be augmented, nor abated, and this is the opinion [as narrated from] Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i [...] 2. That it isn't fixed, but it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihad (independent reasoning) in [determining whether to make] additions or substractions, al-Shram said: It was said to Abi 'Abd Allah: ... He said: "Yes, it is added or substracted according to their (dhimmis) capability, [and] according to what the Imam sees [most fitting]" [...] And 'Umar made the jizya into three different layers: 48 dirhams from the rich, 24 dirhams from the middle class and 12 dirhams from the [working] poor. [...] And this indicates that it goes to the opinion of the Imam. [...] 3. That its minimum is rated at one dinar, but its maximum isn't fixed, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr, so it is permitted to add, ...

— Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10

16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Al-Nawawi on the treatment of the dhimmis

In the article I read a quote from Al-Nawawi's "Rawdat al-Talibin": In contrast, the 13th century hadith scholar and Shafi'ite jurist Al-Nawawi, comments on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the jizya, stating, "As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya."

But is he the same author that in the "Minhai al-Talibin" writes this? "An infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain; the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, the head bent and the body bowed. The infidel should personally place the money in the balance, while the collector holds him by the beard and strikes him upon both cheeks. These practices, however, according to most jurists, are merely commendable, but not obligatory, as some think."
I do not know how to reconcile the two quotes. Any idea? --Domics (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: interesting quote, but you missed this part: "[For a collector to act in the manner here described is absolutely forbidden, and it is a grave error to declare it to be commendable.]". This was probably al-Nawawi's comment, but I'm not sure why the translator used square brackets. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics and Wiqi55: In Rawdat al-Talibin al-Nawawi first quotes the opinion that "An infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain; the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, ...etc" then he comments on it, stating,

قُلْتُ: هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةُ الْمَذْكُورَةُ أَوَّلًا: لَا نَعْلَمُ لَهَا عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ أَصْلًا مُعْتَمَدًا، وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا الخراسَانِيِّينَ، وَقَالَ جُمْهُورٌ الْأَصْحَابِ: تُؤْخَذُ الْجِزْيَةُ بِرِفْقٍ ، كَأَخْذِ الدُّيُونِ . فَالصَّوَابُ الْجَزْمُ بِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةَ بَاطِلَةٌ مَرْدُودَةٌ عَلَى مَنِ اخْتَرَعَهَا، وَلَمْ يُنْقَلْ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ وَلَا أَحَدًا مِنَ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ فَعَلَ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا ، مَعَ أَخْذِهِمِ الْجِزْيَةَ

That seems to be the case here, and additionally Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti stated that he made a similar injunction in Minhaj al-Talibin, which would probably correspond to the quote Wiqi55 added. (confirmed, see *)

For verification purposes, here's where you could find the relevant quote from Rawdat al-Talibin: https://archive.org/stream/0344492236513263165316253621/10_44499#page/n313/mode/2up

* So I actually confirmed what Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti stated, he actually referred to a commentary on Minhaj al-Talibin by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, it can be accessed here, on p.331, al-Nawawi states, after quoting the "An infidel has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax-collector with disdain...etc":

قلت: هده الهيئة باطلة و دعوة استحبابها أشد خطأ
I said: For a collector to act in the manner here described is absolutely forbidden, and it is a grave error to declare it to be commendable.

So maybe the translator put it in brackets to distinguish between the opinions expounded by al-Nawawi, and al-Nawawi's own opinions.

19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

OK, thanks now I understand that at the end of the paragraph there is the personal opinion by al-Nawawi. But according to al-Nawawi is it also forbidden for an infidel "to commission a Moslem to pay the poll-tax for him, or to pay it by means of the transfer of a debt due to him by a Moslem"? Then, may I know the meaning of 'hay’ah'? --Domics (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: hay'ah has been translated by Dr. Dagli as "practice". 12:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

if it means simply 'practice' I do not understand the need to put in brackets 'hay'ah' in the translation so I thought it had some special significance. --Domics (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: I also don't know why Dr. Dagli put it in brackets, perhaps deleting it would be more convenient, isn't it? 18:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I see that the quote from that publication is already modified omitting other words that Dagli put in brackets. I miss the reasons of the WP editor that has so chosen. --Domics (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Can you be more specific? 12:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Dagli puts in brackets hay’ah, dayn and jumhūr but on the WP's quote there is only hay’ah. For this I thought that hay’ah had some special meaning according to the WP editor who wrote the note. If this is not the case we could omit (hay’ah ). --Domics (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Oh, you're right, didn't notice that. Will add them to the quote, thanks for spotting that. 11:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Minhai al-Talibin is an abridgment and comment of Abu l-Qasim al-Rafi'i's al-Muharrar. So is it the opinion that "an infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain..." from the latter? Is it al-Rafi'i's opinion that al-Nawawi comments at the end of the paragraph?--Domics (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: I assume that it would be al-Rafi'i's own opinion. 12:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

At this point I think tha it would be useful to put at the least in the note the whole paragraph from the Minhai al-Talibin (we have an English translation for this book) so the reader could understand what is the practice that according to al-Nawawi is forbidden altogether and that according to al-Rafi'i it was commendable for most jurists and obligatory for some.--Domics (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Are you suggesting to add a note or to add it in the reference? Since what is references isn't Minhaj al-Talibin but Rawdat al-Talibin; 11:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I think that here in Wikipedia English we should prefer books translated in English accessible to all. This is the case of the Minhaj al-Talibin. I see that the article refers to the Rawdat al-Talibin but you said "In Rawdat al-Talibin al-Nawawi first quotes the opinion that "An infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain; the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, ...etc" " so al-Nawawi in both books cites the same opinion. I see two options: we quote from the Minhaj al-Talibin according to the English translation we have or you could translate the whole paragraph from the Rawdat al-Talibin. What matters is that it is reported the opinion on which al-Nawawi disagrees. --Domics (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: The book edited by Ghazi, Kamali et al, is in English and it quotes al-Nawawi's Rawdat al-Talibin. I don't see why you want to add the full quote, since the opinion of al-Rafi'i is already mentioned (not it entirely) in that section, namely here: "Ennaji and other scholars state that some jurists required the jizya to be paid by each in person, by presenting himself, arriving on foot not horseback, by hand, in order to confirm that he lowers himself to being a subjected one, and willingly pays."

12:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

the jizya should be paid "arriving on foot not horseback, by hand..." is not the same as the practice described above ("the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, the head bent and the body bowed. The infidel should personally place the money in the balance, while the collector holds him by the beard and strikes him upon both cheeks"). Actually al-Nawawi does not write anything about how the infidel should arrive before the collector. I do not see the difficulty in adding at least in the note the exact opinion that al-Nawawi criticizes. --Domics (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: I perfectly understand what you just said, I myself thought about adding each of these specific practices based on a paper by Muhibbu-Din. However if we were to do that then we should delete the Ennaji and others references, as well as the Ann Lambton one, otherwise the paragraph would become repetitive and relatively long. What do you think? 15:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I see that al-Nawawi's comment is both in the paragraph and in the note. And in the note is both in Arabic and in English. So what is 'repetitive'? The full quote from al-Nawawi would be very useful as it describes the practices and at the same time critizes them and so we have both sides. And as we are in argument: I read in the article that according to Mark R. Cohen "... but some later Muslims interpreted it to contain "an equivocal warrant for debasing the dhimmi (non-Muslim) through a degrading method of remission"." Actually in the book Cohen writes "in the eyes of Muslims later on". Nothing about 'some'. --Domics (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Okay, so what about deleting the Cohen, Muhammad Ennaji, Ann Lambton, ...etc refs and adding the full quote from Minhaj al-Talibin as well as this based on a paper by Muhibbu-Din?

He reports Iqrimah as saying that the protected person should give it while standing and the collector receive it sitting; another group of commentators said that the dhimmi or protected person should bring the jizyah on foot, not riding; and then he should be dragged with harshness to the place of payment, and his hand should then be pulled and treated roughly.

Or we could just add the full quote in Minhaj al-Talibin?

15:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

English translation of Qu'ran 9:29

This article currently employs a rather obscure translation of Surah 9:29 which differs substantially from all major English translations of the Qur'an, including the three at usc.edu (Yusuf Ali, Picthal and Shakir) as well as those of Arberry, Sahih, Sarwar and Khan. For reasons unknown, the transgression of refusing to "acknowledge the religion of Truth" (Yusuf Ali, though similarly rendered in all aforementioned translations)is replaced with a simple failure to "behave according to the rule of justice". Additionally, it declares that non-believers must be fought "until they pay the tax and submit to it (the tax)", whereas the other translations mention a general, symbolic state of submission ("subjection", according to Shakir). These discrepancies change the fundamental meaning of the verse and prejudice the discussion below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri321 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Abdel Haleem's translation was published in 2004 by Oxford University Press. Per WP:RS academic sources are preferrable to non-academic ones and current scholarship is preferrable to that of earlier generations, so I don't see a reason to prefer some of the older translations you listed (I'm not familiar with all those names) even if they are better known to the general public by virtue of expired copyright or better sales. That said, there's no doubt that these passages are polysemous in the original and are translated in different ways even in modern academic sources, and we should reflect the different views with due weight per WP:NPOV. Let's compile some recent and prominent versions here. I will consult the Study Qur'an, which is another recent academic effort. Please quote any other versions you think need to be reflected based on the policy. For example, Arberry is a prominent and relatively recent scholar. Eperoton (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems nonsensical simply to use the most recent available translation simply because it is the most recent, even when it is at odds with an established consensus. This is particularly true when addressing a subject as immutable as text of the Qu'ran, where there is little room for innovation.

As you have asked specifically for Arberry's take on 9:29, here it is:

"Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

If you wish to access his work yourself, it is archived here: https://archive.org/details/QuranAJArberry Yuri321 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Arabic text of the Qur'an (with minor variations) may be immutable, but its intepretations are not, and neither is scholarship into the history of its intepreration or its original meaning. Translators have to take all that into account, and we shouldn't take WP policy lightly in this case.

The translation Study Qur'an reads: "Fight those who believe not in God and in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who follow not the Religion of Truth among those who were given the Book, till they pay the jizyah with a willing hand, being humbled."

This is very close to Arberry's translation and rather more different from Abdel-Haleem's. So, I suggest we quote it in the article as well, to give two contrasting perspectives. Since this approach to translation appears to be more prominent, I'll put it first. Eperoton (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a satisfactory compromise. Thank you for the Study Qur'an translation. Yuri321 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Why don't we use instead the translation that is most linguistically correct? Abdel-Haleem's analysis of the verse is nearer to the original Arabic text, check for instance his analysis of wa-lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq :

Dawood translates this phrase as referring to those who do not embrace the true faith, and Alan Jones gives who do not follow the religion of truth. The main meaning of the Arabic dāna is ‘he obeyed’, and one of the many meanings of dīn is ‘behaviour’ (al-sīra wa’l-ʿāda). Fayrūzabādī (d. 817/1415), gives more than twelve meanings for the word dīn, placing the meaning ‘worship of God, religion’ lower in the list. Al-Muʿjam al-wasīṭ gives the following definition: ‘“dāna” is to be in the habit of doing something good or bad; “dāna bi- something” is to take it as a religion and worship God through it’. Thus, when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. In the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq. The meaning that fits into the jizya verse is thus ‘those who do not follow the way of justice (al-ḥaqq)’, i.e. by breaking their agreement and refusing to pay what is due.

He in fact published an entire academic paper just on this verse.

I think this is much more better than to simply use a translation just because it is "new".

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 Just because Abdel-Haleem published a paper on it does not mean that his interpretation is correct, nor that his analysis is "nearer to the original Arabic text". This cannot be assumed simply on the basis of his own writings without recourse to the reasoning of other translators, many of whom are also native Arabic speakers. In fact, I am yet to find a single work by any other author which corroborates Abdel-Haleem's translation. Yuri321 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is that other translators did not publish their "reasoning", and as Abdel-Haleem rightly points out, many of them were mistaken in this particular point, many of them did not pay attention to that "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq."

And at this point we should follow Abdel-Haleem's analysis, not because he has published a paper, but that he actually gave reasons for why other translations were mistaken.

That's like having everyone say "water boils at 100°C" and then a professor publishes a peer-reviewed paper in which he actually explains that this is not necessarily the case, and that it depends on the impurities in the water, the atmospheric pressure (which is not always 1 atm), and that the temperature of wate may not be uniform in a vessel...etc; And then someone says, "Oh no! I have yet to find a popular source which agrees with him! Here have a sit, look at all these sources that explicitly say that 'water boils at 100°C', he ought to be wrong"

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So you can't corroborate his position, then? Yuri321 (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 What do you mean "corroborate"? You're doing exactly as the "water boils at 100°C many sources" guy.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I should not have to respond to that dreadful analogy, but as you've used it twice now I will: many other Qur'anic translators are respected academics, not ignorant laymen. Abdel-Haleem is not the first qualified person ever to handle this material, and as his interpretation differs substantially from every other translation I can find, it should not be given prominence in the article. That is why I'm asking for corroboration. Yuri321 (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 In my analogy also those who say "water boils at 100°C" are respected academics and scientists.

We don't necesserily have to have a corroboration, his paper was published in 2012? How many people who happen to translate the Quran have seen it?

We can also follow the analogy and say that the scientist who pointed out that "wate boils at 100°C" is incorrect is just one, yet many had stated that.

you're violating wikipedia rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS none of the sources you mention say that it is a minority opinion and you're synthesizing multiple sources to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly stated in those sources

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you cannot find anything to corroborate Abdel-Haleem's position. If you cannot demonstrate the prominence of his argument, then you are violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view particularly the due and undue weight section. Yuri321 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 I already showed that there's no need for corroboration, Abdel-Haleem mentions his reasons, and as the analogy goes, "the scientist who pointed out that "wate boils at 100°C" is incorrect is just one [meaning no corroboration], yet many had stated that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view is respected, since from right the beginning of the paragraph we find "Dawood translates this phrase as referring to those who do not embrace the true faith, and Alan Jones gives who do not follow the religion of truth. "

And the reasons pointed out by Abdel-Haleem are, "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq."

By the way do you know arabic? Because if you don't even speak arabic, then how come you talk about that which you have no/little knowledge of?

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As you appear to have missed it, I will quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view directly: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As you have dedicated the majority of the analysis in this section to Abdel-Haleem's argument, an argument that you cannot even corroborate with the work of one other author, and as you suggested the removal of the conventional translation of Qu'ran 9:29 in favour of A-H's, this is a clear violation of neutrality and weighting.

I further recommend that you avoid needless fallacies in future; whether I speak Arabic is irrelevant, as the numerous translators of the Qur'an above certainly can. Yuri321 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 Laughing out loud! "As you appear to have missed it" NO I DIDNT, I said previously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view is respected, since from right the beginning of the paragraph we find "Dawood translates this phrase as referring to those who do not embrace the true faith, and Alan Jones gives who do not follow the religion of truth. "

As I said times and times again corroboration is not necessary in this case.

It is isn't a violation of weighting because of the mass of Abdel-Haleem's arguments, and because he has a special paper specifically on the subject that is peer-reviewed and published in the prestigious Journal of Qur'anic Studies, which Abdel-Haleem is himself an editor of.

Whether you speak Arabic is definitely relevant since it will point out whether you can can understand that "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq."

You still didn't address the analogy I presented or why it wouldn't be relevant.

Just speaking a knowledge doesn't mean you can't make mistakes when translating it, right?

----154.127.59.154 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You should work on your reading comprehension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view is very clear: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects . . . Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." As you can see, corroboration is necessary as it directly relates to the prominence of an argument. Whether you personally find Abdel-Haleem's case convincing or not is irrelevant.

Again, my aptitude in Arabic is immaterial, and your bringing it up is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. All the translators who disagree with your position are fluent Arabic speakers; many are native speakers. Attacking me because I may or may not speak the language has no bearing at all upon the accuracy of their work.

Your analogy is poor because it is, essentially, a form of the Galileo fallacy. That is, that Abdel-Haleem is correct because sometimes a dissenting opinion is vindicated. I should not have to explain why this is not necessarily true. Yuri321 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 You say that we shouldn't reflect the minority opinion, but this is the majority opinion "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq.". Until you show that it isn't the case that "dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion", can we then say that it isn't a majority opinion. Do you have a reliable source that disagrees with what was said in Mu'jam al-Waseet on that?

It isn't an attack on you, since it shows whether you really understand what we're saying here or not.

It isn't a Galileo fallacy, you have yet to show a reliable source that disagrees with what was said in Mu'jam al-Waseet.

Abdel-Haleem is true not because "dissenting opinion is vindicated" but because his arguments are true, and more importantly, unchallenged, you have yet to show a reliable source that disagrees with what was said in Mu'jam al-Waseet.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been challenged by a plethora of translators. Stop shifting the goalposts. Yuri321 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton I'm trying to translate this commentary by the late Syrian scholar Muhammad Saʿid Ramadan al-Buti, who was known for being a staunch madhhabist, where he outlines the difference between the words "القتال" and "القتل", and its impact in understanding the verse, but I don't know how I can translate them while differentiating between them in the simplest manner,

الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين ... فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.

Ramadan al-Buti, Muhammad Saʿid (2005). Al-Jihād fī’l-Islām الجهاد في الإسلام (in Arabic). Damascus: Dār al-Fikr. pages 101-102.

What do you suggest?

You can find the book online very easily if you want to check the source and read further context.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yuri321, 154.127.59.154: It's great to see a policy-based discussion, but please make sure you've read WP:3RR. We aren't dealing with one of the exceptions here, and no great harm will come about if one or another version stays up for a few more hours or even days. One of you has already qualified for an automatic block, and the involvement of multiple IP users in an edit war would normally qualify the page for semi-protection. I agree with some arguments made by both of you and disagree with others.

Yuri321 is correct that WP:NPOV requires us to reflect all significant views found in RSs in proportion to their prominence in RSs. The N in NPOV means that we can't base these choices on our own views about correctness of these views, including our views about the argumentation they use or don't use to support them. What this involves is evaluation of academic credentials and influence of publishers and authors. If there's a prominent RS which argues against a previously accepted interpretation, we should reflect that, but not take its side, unless and until this view has been accepted in the field and superseded the previous view. I see no evidence of that happening in this case, as evidenced by the more recent translation in the Study Quran.

154.127.59.154 is correct that assessing which view is minority or majority requires a RSs which explicitly makes that assessment, and doing so without one violates WP:SYNTHESIS. What is done in these cases is display the citations supporting one and the other. Yuri321 has already done that, though "many" is also a problematic quantifier, and is unnecessary if the reader can count the sources cited for each view for themselves. I do, however, think that we should place the other translation first in that paragraph too, in view of its greater prominence.

I'll make an edit and if there's still disagreement, let's continue the discussion here. I'll comment about al-Buti later, as I have to attend to some non-WP business.

P.S. Has the newly added passage been paraphrased or copied verbatim? If it's the latter, please paraphrase it ASAP in the main article text to avoid WP:COPYVIO, which is a serious matter. Upon closer inspection it seem to be a paraphrase.

Eperoton (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I have to disagree here. You say that we shouldn't reflect the minority opinion, but this is the majority opinion "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq.". Until you show that it isn't the case that "dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion", can we then say that it isn't a majority opinion. Do you have a reliable source that disagrees with what was said in Mu'jam al-Waseet on that? The Study Quran is not recent, it's a 10 year long project in which progression was linear, since 9 is amongst the first surah we can say that the authors translate it in 2007/2008.

Again I gave the analogy of: That's like having everyone say "water boils at 100°C" and then a professor publishes a peer-reviewed paper in which he actually explains that this is not necessarily the case, and that it depends on the impurities in the water, the atmospheric pressure (which is not always 1 atm), and that the temperature of wate may not be uniform in a vessel...etc; And then someone says, "Oh no! I have yet to find a popular source which agrees with him! Here have a sit, look at all these sources that explicitly say that 'water boils at 100°C', he ought to be wrong"

I will do a rephrase in complicance with those policies.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You can find almost any view in the humanities being challenged by some peer-reviewed paper. Making novel contributions, including challenging accepted views is what gets papers published. However, there's a difference between challenging an accepted view and convincing the field to accept a new view. Until there's concrete evidence of it being accepted by the field as the correct translation, favoring one source over multiple other RSs of comparable prominence violates WP:NPOV.

As for al-Buti, are you trying to decide how to translate those two words (normally, fighting vs. killing), or the entire passage? Eperoton (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton Numero uno, there's a logical gap in your reasoning, if "almost" all objects A are B, then that doesn't mean that a particular A is B. In this case, if you really think that we "can find almost any view in the humanities being challenged by some peer-reviewed paper" then please find a view that differs from that "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq." If you do so then I'll be more than happy to edit myself the article in the way you did.

Deuxièmement, this is a matter of linguistics, nor social sciences, and in Arabic many matters in linguistic remain firmly clinging to the universe of Arabic dictionaries. Can you cite one which state that dāna may be used to refer to beliefs/religion without the preposition bi-?

Thirdly, this does not violate neutrality policies, I clearly mentioned the translations of Dawood and Alan in the first place to mention the other viewpoint.

@Eperoton I can translate the entire passage, I'm asking just about those two words, but I don't think that fighting correctly translates "القتال" since one may fight someone without that person causing any threat, which would be contrary to the meaning of "القتال".

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, differing views have been provided already in the form of various Qur'an translations. Stop shifting the goalposts.

If you cannot recongise that skewing the article heavily in favour of the views of A-H violates the neutrality policy (specifically this: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects . . . Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements") then I cannot help you because you're being deliberately obstinate. Yuri321 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, varying translations do not translate to someone thinking that dāna may be used to refer to beliefs/religion without the preposition bi-, because they're simply not equivalent, a translator may see "din al-haqq" and immediately turn his attention to "religion of truth" because of the earlier connotations and because of that intricate detail.

I'm not skewing the article in favour of the views of a person, I'm redirecting it to the correct position, the one which is supported by the facts, namely that, "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq." And I have here someone who doesn't even speak arabic tell me what we ought to do here (at least @Eperoton apparently from his user page says that he knows arabic).

I said and I'll repeat it: THE MAJORITY VIEW is that "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq." Can you show that there's someone who thinks that dāna may be used to refer to beliefs/religion without the preposition bi-?

I'm not obstinate, it's you who are, it's you who entirely dismissed A-H translation right at the beginning, and the many statements he said, because you thought that this was a "dubious source", despite being published by the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Qur'anic Studies. And now you're leveling charges of NPOV against me when those charges from the very beginning apply to you?

Your entire account is a single purpose one, you literally made it just to further one specific agenda.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeat yourself all you want, but THE MAJORITY VIEW is that Qur'an 9:29 contains the phrase "who follow not the Religion of Truth", and this is evidenced by the large number of translations listed above. You, conversely, have only cited the work of Abdel-Haleem. By definition that means his is the MINORITY VIEW, and all the wishful thinking in the world will not change that.

I will not deign to address the various fallacies and accusations that make up the rest of your post. Everything important has been addressed already. Yuri321 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We're conflating two different type of views here.

The first view concerns how to translate the passage. It's expressed by the other translators through their word choices, and we should reflect them proportionally. Whether or not we find their argumentation convincing, or if they adduce any argumentation all (we don't know what research they may have done or consulted) is immaterial per NPOV. The contrast between a research paper and an almanac is relevant to due weight because almanacs are usually written by non-specialists, but not because one provides argumentation and the other does not. There are multiple recent specialists we have now cited for the other translation. If you still have a different take on NPOV, you're welcome to get additional input on the NPOV noticeboard.

The second view concerns the significance of some linguistic details in this context. Of the voluminous research on Arabic philology, Abdel-Haleem's is the only view we happen to have at hand, and one can't argue that we don't give it enough weight -- it accounts for most of the paragraph.

I'm pretty sure "fighting" is the usual translation of qital in the Quranic context, though I don't have time to double-check this at the moment. It's true that the word has a special connotation of deadly fighting, compared to other Arabic words related to this sense. Hans-Wehr gives two sets of meanings for modern usage: one starting with "fighting" and the other with "combat". I would suggest preserving the original Arabic in the translation and clarifying this with an additional gloss, as in qital (fighting, combat). Eperoton (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton The first view is directly related to the second, because the second implies the first, but not the opposite. Purposely leaning towards the view that is contrary to Arabic lexicography is precisely to me a form of NPOV.

"fighting" is still not a correct translation, because as I said earlier one may fight a group of people without them initiating the fight/war, which is precisely the point of difference between qatl and qital.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is contrary to Arabic lexicography in the view of Abdel-Haleem, and we give him plenty of space to explain himself. I hope you aren't arguing that it's also contrary to it in the view of all the other translators.

This point about offense vs. defense is what al-Buti's quote argues, and if you just translate it, citing the Arabic terms qatl and qital with English glosses, that should convey its meaning, right? Eperoton (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 I have already explained the reason behind that, THE MAJORITY VIEW among Arab lexicographers is that "when the verb dāna is used in the sense of ‘to believe’ or ‘to practise a religion’, it takes the preposition bi- after it (e.g. dāna bi’l-Islām) and this is the only usage in which the word means religion. And that in the jizya verse, it does not say lā yadīnūna bi-dīni’l-ḥaqq; rather lā yadīnūna dīna’l-ḥaqq." Can you show that there's someone who thinks that dāna may be used to refer to beliefs/religion without the preposition bi-? Just answer this question, can you show that there's someone who thinks that dāna may be used to refer to beliefs/religion without the preposition bi-? a translator may see "din al-haqq" and immediately turn his attention to "religion of truth" because of the earlier connotations and because of that intricate detail, which didn't necessarily lead him to consult a book on Arabic lexicography.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You can speculate about what translators may or may not have done all you like; I personally do not see any use in repeating myself ad nauseam. The point you raise has already been addressed, and unless you can substantiate A-H's position using additional, independent sources then it is a moot one. Simply repeating his argument back to us is not satisfactory. Yuri321 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri321 I have yet to see you providing a (reliable) reference to someone who thinks that dāna may be used to refer to beliefs/religion without the preposition bi-.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Scroll up. There are plenty of authors who have translated the phrase as religion. Yuri321 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton "I hope you aren't arguing that it's also contrary to it in the view of all the other translators." That's what I said. Abdel-Haleem didn't state that there was a difference of opinion among lexicographers concerning that, although he did state that translators differed, because translators do not necessarily view Arabic lexicographical sources to make a translation. The situation is a bit like this: We have many (reliable) sources that say A, but none of them reference it to some earlier much more relevant and authoritative source, next to that we have only one single reference that does so. Are we gonna give prominence to the first?

Okay that's what I'll do. It's a bit disappointing at how different words in arabic can get by just tiny intricate details, but there's no english equivalent to accurately convey the meaning. IN any case I will add that.

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

On first point: yes, NPOV doesn't allow our analysis of argumentation used by RSs to affect our treatment of their conclusions. If Abdel-Haleem has in fact convinced his colleagues about this point, we'll have to wait until we can see evidence of that in other RSs.

On the second point: I wasn't suggesting changing the cited translation of the verse. Qital isn't a term like jizya which is commonly left untranslated, and the predominant translation seems to be "fighting". I was referring to our own efforts to translate al-Buti's quote, and I think it's clear which word in the verse translation it refers to. I'll also rework the translation according to my understanding of the original, though let me know if you disagree with my take. Eperoton (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton For the first point: How can we even be sure that the same persons who translated it saw his paper? (when nearly all of them were made before 2012)

Also why did you add (fighting) and even without parentheses in that translation? Didn't we agree that they're totally different from qital? Anyway i'll change that hope you're cool with that, I have nothing but appreciation for your other changes in the translation

--154.127.59.154 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We can only reflect views that have actually been published, not views that we think someone might have held if they read a certain paper. The bottom line is, even if Abdel-Haleem's argument has convinced his peers, it's too early to tell.

On al-Buti, there's a point of readability for non-Arabic speakers, and we can consult Yuri321 on that. Either the Arabic terms or English glosses can be in parentheses, but the text seems unclear for those unfamiliar with Arabic grammar if we skip the latter altogether. There's a point about qital being "totally different" from fighting, which it is not according to the cited Quranic translations and the Hans-Wehr dictionary of modern Arabic, although al-Buti argues for some fine distinctions of meaning. There's also a point about replacement of killing with fighting in the last sentence. I'm puzzled by this change, since the original says qatl. Eperoton (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it reads more smoothly with the English glosses. Yuri321 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I just created this account, I'll be using it for further edits when I don't feel lazzy to login.

@Eperoton Because qatl is not necessarily killing, qatl may be fighting/combating as in starting a pre-emptive war.

By the way al-Buti gives a narration from al-Shafi'i where he states this distinction. And in general this is something very known, it is mentioned by Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani in Fath al-Bari as well.

--TalkJizya (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@TalkJizya: Well, this is turning to be quite an intricate translation. According to what I know, both in modern Arabic and in usual Quranic interpretation, qatl is the standard word for killing and doesn't mean fighting, so I'm assuming you mean that this other usage is well known to those who are well versed in the writings of classical authors. I don't claim to be one of those people. If there's context in al-Buti to indicate that he's using this other meaning rather the standard usage of the word, could you paste it or link to it here? Aside from the purposes of translation, I'm curious myself. Also, if qatl is left translated as "fighting" without further classification, it will just prompt other editors to change it at a later date. I think we also need to figure out how to handle English glosses for readability, per Yuri's feedback and standard practice in translation for a general audience. Eperoton (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: i'm saying that because fighting does not correctly translate Qātala, it's kind of a problem when you don't have available words that would correctly translate them, also qataltu can be used in the sense of fighting such as in (9:5) which many translations translate as 'fight', for example:

T.B.Irving - When the hallowed months have slipped away, then fight associators wherever you may find them; take them and besiege them, and waylay them at every outpost. If they should repent, keep up prayer and pay the welfare tax, then let them go their way. God is Forgiving, Merciful.

Farook Malik - When the forbidden months (10,11,12 & 1 of the Islamic calendar) are over, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, seize them, besiege them, and lie in ambush for them in every stratagem of war, but if they repent, establish Salah and pay Zakah, then let them go their way: surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

That's why I would prefer to keep them in a romanized transliteration, and since al-Buti was giving a definition anyway.

--TalkJizya (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Fight" seems to be an infrequent Quranic translation for qatala, and if one were to reflect it, it could be cited alongside as in "kill/fight". Anyway, I'm going away on a trip, and I'll set this discussion aside for now. I think the upshot of the current version is that it most readers will have difficulty understanding it, and other editors who know Arabic will be prompted to change it at a later date. Eperoton (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

What about using the actual arabic text in paretheses? That would clear up things a bit more.

--TalkJizya (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if I understand your proposal correctly, that would certainly help. Eperoton (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check it now. Also "or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares" is a bit dry to me, would love to see suggestions at improving and easing it.

--TalkJizya (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood your proposal. I don't see how that would help either people who don't know Arabic or those who do.

I agree that the phrase is awkward and I'm not sure if "forestall" is a commonly understood word. Making another attempt. Eperoton (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a minor detail, so it's difficult to encapsulate it in the most conveniant way for Arabic and non-Arabic speaking people.

By the way I preferred your previous translation, the current one is more akin to misinterpretation.

--TalkJizya (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by misinterpretation? It would be nice to get input from additional editors on this translation. Reeves.ca is a native speaker who has been previously involved on this page, though I'm not sure if he's around at the moment. If you don't mind, we could also ping MezzoMezzo. Eperoton (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will switch to the previous translation until we come to a better one.

--TalkJizya (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Al-Buti translation

@MezzoMezzo and Reeves.ca: With TalkJizya's permission, I'd like to ask for your opinions regarding translation of a passage by Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti. The original is as follows:

«الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين ... فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.»

Our current translation reads: "The verse commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words ... For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares."

There's currently some disagreement on the following points:

1. Whether the Arabic terms in the translation should be glossed (as fighting/combat, killing, etc) or left without a gloss;
2. Whether qatl in the last sentence should be translated as "fight" or "killing";
3. How best to render the last clause. One alternative proposal was "or if you anticipated his intention to do so before he could catch you off-guard".

Thanks for your help. Eperoton (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Posting here to note that I'm aware of the ping, though I'm assuming it would be good manners to wait for commentary from the other party involved before I comment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

taxes levied on non-Muslim subjects were among the main sources of revenues collected by some Islamic polities

This is in the introduction

But there is source that contradicts it = H.R.H. Prince, Ghazi Muhammad; Ibrahim, Kalin; Mohammad Hashim, Kamali (2013). War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad (PDF). The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8. page 241 says "To the best of our knowledge, the jizyah tax was not a significant source of income for the state" --TalkJizya (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The source you have provided uses weasel words ('to the best of our knowledge'). The one already in use in the article employs more certain terms. I advise leaving it in its current state. Yuri321 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, in the view of the majority of Fuqahā (Islamic jurists), the jizya is levied on non-Muslims in order to humiliate them for their unbelief.

This reference runs contrary to many others such as the reference by Muhammad Imara, al-Buti and by al-Nawawi among others.

Even the author of the article says that

There is no reason to take the state of submissiveness for non-Muslim subjects in a strict literal sense. It must be taken rather in the political sense. Shafi'i takes the word in question in the of sense sub mission to the authority of Islam.4 According to Raghib, the word oj>U denotes obedience to the authority of Islam

A close study of the early history of Jizya particularly since its imposition by the Prophet till later in the period of Khulafa' Rashidun will reveal that it was a tax through the payment of which the non-Muslim subjects were expected to pay allegiance to the political authority of Islam. There is nothing to prove that it was imposed just to humiliate them or to make them socially degraded.

I'm for deleting this one, Yuri disagrees, what do you think? --TalkJizya (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a very tricky point, both in the context of this section and the Rationale section. I've looked into this issue earlier, but have procrastinaed on taking action. At the moment, we have many more sources cited for other rationales. What we do not distinguish, however, are views that seek to objectively describe classical-era views and views that seek to draw on the classical tradition in advocating a particular vision of Islam. It's not clear that we can distingiush them here without violating WP:NOR, and this is not to say that Islamic writers are somehow inherently biased while Orientalists are inherently objective. It is clear, though, that are other significant sources we don't currently reflect here. This notably include the Kuwait Encyclopeida of Fiqh [1], where the terms ذلّ or إذلال appear in four opinions cited under three of the four general rationales, and the following quotes from Bernard Lewis and Anver Emon:

But here again what concerns us is not the original  meaning of the verse but the way in which it was interpreted in historic Islam. On this there is little doubt. The normal interpretation was that the jizya was not only a tax but also a symbolic expression of subordination. The Qur’ān and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasement) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Muhammad, and in which they should be kept so long as they persist in that rejection. [...] The imposition of the jizya, and more especially the manner of its payment, are usually interpreted in this light. [...] In contrast to the commentators and other theologians, the jurists are less ferocious and more concerned with the fiscal than the symbolic aspect of the jizya. [...] Several points must be noted in considering these and other similar passages.  First, the jurists, with their more humane and also more practical attitude, belong  to the early period of Islam, when it was confident and expanding; the commentators cited were writing in a period of contraction and constraint, when Islam was under threat both at home and abroad. Second, there can be no doubt that it is the attitudes of the jurists, rather than of the commentators and other theologians, that more accurately reflect the practice of Muslim rulers and administrators. Most of these, in the treatment of dhimmīs as in many other matters, failed to meet the exacting demand of their religious advisers and critics. The rules that some of the ulema laid down on the collection of the jizya and related matters belong more to the history of mentalities than of institutions. They have their own kind of importance, which becomes greater in times of crisis or defeat. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, pp. 43-45

 Authors debate whether the jizya was meant to subjugate and humiliate non-Muslims, or whether it was only intended as a service fee for military protection. Muhammad Hamidullah argues that the jizya was solely for protection. Without citing economic studies, he states, “So, the non-Muslims paid a little supplementary tax, the jizyah … which was neither heavy nor unjust.” Mahmoud Ayoub and Haddad argue instead that it served both functions: it was both a mode of subservience and a method of inclusion. Hamidullah’s account reflects the imperatives of the myth of harmony, while Haddad and Ayoub offer a historical account of the jizya’s complex social function in early Islamic history. [...] the studies on the jizya, in the aggregate, suggest that the jizya was a complex symbol which can be viewed as a tool of marginalization or a mechanism of inclusion, but more fruitfully is understood as both. Emon, Anver M. (2012-07-26). Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford Islamic Legal Studies) (p. 99). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition. Eperoton (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton For the Encyclopedia of Fiqh it does not give an overview of the exegetical tradition on aṣ-Ṣaghār, rather it talks about the rationale of jizya, something very different. Those two terms don't appear in the main titles also, so the authors of that entry in the encyclopedia did not state that.

For the Emon Anver source: We are talking about the exegetical tradition relation to aṣ-Ṣaghār, not the historical side.

For the Bernard Lewis: He does not give a full account. Abdel-Haleem does a far better job at giving the multiple accounts on exegesis of aṣ-Ṣaghār. And we already have the al-Nawawi, Imara and al-Buti sources among others. --TalkJizya (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked. Will reply shortly. Eperoton (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, as I was saying: very tricky. I want to re-read the sources, which will have to wait until the weekend, but a few general observations.

1. Per WP:NPOV, we can only base our edits on a source's prominence, not on whether we think it handles the topic well or poorly. Abdel-Haleem, Lewis, and Emon are all prominent specialists in this area, and the Kuwait Encyclopedia of Fiqh is a prominent specialist reference. Their viewpoints should all be reflected in one way or another. I don't know who Ahmed is, though his article is a RS.
2. Opinions held by Islamic scholars about the jizya verse and about the rationale(s) of jizya are obviously related, but it's true that we need to base our discussion of the verse on sources that refer to it explicitly to avoid WP:SYNTH. The question is which sources should be covered in the Quran section and which to the Rationale section.
3. There's a multiplicity of views about jizya found in the sources, both in terms of substance and in terms of persons holding the views: views of early jurists, views of classical Quranic commentators, views of modern religious scholars and of academic scholars about what the Quran originally meant and about significance of jizya in other periods of history. Right now these are all jumbled together, which isn't helpful to the reader. To the degree that we can clarify who is holding what views, we should. More seriously, their treatment in the Rationale section is in clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. It underplays the rationales common among classical commentators that are less in tune with modern sensibilities and it gives undue weight to the antiquated book by Arnold which academic literature has generally stopped citing a long time ago. We'll need to fix this policy violation. Eperoton (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your original criticism: You name two modern scholars, Imara and al-Buti, and state that their work contradicts Ahmed, but you fail to adduce any evidence to support this claim. Please provide quotations or, at the very least, references.

Al-Nawawi, on the other hand, is of little use to us. Having died in 1277, he is ill-placed to offer any assessment of Islamic theology or Qur’anic exegesis in, say, 1700, or any other date after his death.

Your quotation from Ahmed is also of little consequence. His own opinion of the verse has no bearing on the position taken by the majority of Fuqahā.

Your edit on 1 September: Firstly, you cannot use a single primary source from the mid-thirteenth century to reach a general conclusion on the position of Islamic jurists across the entire medieval period. This is especially true when the quoted author may have contradicted himself in another work; there was a useful discussion of this here on the talk page but it appears to have been deleted. If it were the case that a modern scholar had assessed the available evidence and arrived at that conclusion then your edit would be defensible, but a single source from the middle of the period in question certainly does not suffice. Besides, it is manifestly false to claim that the ‘view of the majority of medieval Muslim jurists’ was that ‘the jizya ought to be taken with gentleness’ because such a claim contradicts the historical record.

For example, dhimmis had to pay the jizya in person during the rules of the Fatimid and Ayyubid dynasties in Egypt, and throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Iraq, as a mark of their humiliation before the Muslim authority. Similarly, dhimmis in al-Andalus were (among other prohibitions) forbidden from riding horses; where exceptions to these rules are found, they ensue not from the charitable, ‘gentle’ position of the ulema but from the policies of secular rulers willing to trade concessions for assistance (such as in the sphere of banking). In India, the fourteenth-century Muslim historian, Ziauddin Barani, records that Sultan Alauddin Khilji was advised by his qāḍī that ‘the due subordination of the zimmi is exhibited in this humble payment [jizya] and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths’, specifically citing the Qur’anic injunction to ‘keep them under in subjection’ as justification. This is not, therefore, a minority position. Or, if it is, then you should be able to explain why it managed to monopolise state power from the farthest western reaches of the Islamic world to the farthest east, with reference to analysis from the secondary sources.

Secondly, I do not understand why you decided to replace the sentence about the general consensus among Islamic jurists with one specifically concerning the medieval period; even if your rather dubious edit were correct, it would not refute or supersede the existing text. Your edit did, however, leave that section hopelessly partisan, with a paltry 20 in 188 words dedicated to the common exegetical position that ‘wa-hum ṣāghirūn’ relates to submission and humiliation. To leave it in such a state would be a clear breach of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Your response to Eperoton: I disagree with your criticism of Lewis’ work. Having read Abdel-Haleem’s article, I believe Lewis gave the subject a better, more dispassionate treatment. Having said that, I hope you aren’t going to disregard all other sources out of hand in favour of Abdel-Haleem as per our previous encounter. Yuri321 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton

1. 100% agree, just that a reliable source should be reflected according to specific criteria: verifiability, relevance to the topic, ... By the way, who is this Ahmed Ziauddin? Is he an accomplished professor, scholar, ...?

2. I think you're having a misunderstanding here. There's a huge difference between the rationale for jizya and the exegesis for the specific Qur'anic term aṣ-Ṣaghār. You should distinguish between those.

3. You're writing as tho the "classical commentators" contradict the common consensus that jizya is in exchange for military service (see the Ibn Hajar reference), where is it "less in tune with modern sensibilities"? In point of fact, classical commentators do not even delve into explaining the justification for jizya, it's actually the jurists who expound on that. Your evaluation of the Arnold reference is also flawed, it's a renowed classic and should be cited and given prominence just like his fellows such as Theodor Nöldeke.

@Yuri321

1. No, I didn't fail to do that, they clearly stated, ""

2. For the Nawawi quote, I explicitly changed "Islamic jurists" to "medieval Muslim jurist" to reflect that.

3. I showed that Ahmed had a different conception of humiliation than the one you use. The position maintened by the majority of jurists is that jizya is in exchange for military service, as stated by Ibn Hajar. This is also the explicit position of the Hanafi school, which was the official school of the Ottoman Empire.

4. NO NO AND NO. THE AUTHOR DID NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF. Show your proof.

5. Are you serious? The section is explicitly about the exegesis of the term aṣ-Ṣaghār and not about the historical reality. You're confusing things up, and you're providing your own opinion on these sources, which is an invalid approach, so I wont reply to those things who are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, riding horsees???! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE EXEGESIS OF THE TERM aṣ-Ṣaghār??! OR EVEN ABOUT THE HISTORICAL EMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THOSE INTERPRETATIONS??! THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC, right?

6. Dear @Eperoton:, please read this with the least bias possible and with the utmost neutrality = This is not, therefore, a minority position. Or, if it is, then you should be able to explain why it managed to monopolise state power from the farthest western reaches of the Islamic world to the farthest east, with reference to analysis from the secondary sources. = And tell me whether this individual is serious or seriously biased and has no interest in ameliorating this article? I can't imagine someone seriously wanting to ameliorate this article request that I provide to him an explanation of the Islamic conquests "with reference to analysis from the secondary sources"

..... -_-

7. "Having read Abdel-Haleem’s article" Oh, really? So what does he quote Abu Hayyan as saying in page 77?

I will be writing a set of key points that should be reflected in that article hoping to arrive at a consensus with @Eperoton, at the moment I will not change that part of that section until a consensus is reached here, okay?

--TalkJizya (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

1. No, you didn’t. There are no quotations from either Imara or al-Buti in your opening post.

2. Your edit: ‘Indeed, in the view of the majority of medieval Muslim jurists, the jizya ought to be taken with gentleness’. To reiterate my first response: a single primary source from the middle of the thirteenth century is not sufficient to arrive at this conclusion.

3. To quote Ahmed:

“Until they pay Jizya readily being brought low”. It seems that a tendency to understand the verse in question in a compact literal sense rather than in its real historical perspective had led may Fuqahā and exegetes to consider Jizya as a mark of degradation for non-Muslim subjects and then to infer corollaries reflective of their humiliation. For example, some Fuqahā say that non-Muslim subjects should not ride a horse and should go on foot while paying Jizya. Some have to the extent of suggesting that the Jizya payers should first be caught by their beards and then ordered to make the payment. According to a section of the Fuqahā, the Jizya payers, as a mark of their being degraded people, should not be allowed to wear such garments as worn by the Muslims; a display of their humiliation should always distinctly be made in their wears, in their apparel, in their movements, and even while riding cattle.

Clearly, he is discussing the same sort of humiliation we are. Whether or not he personally agrees with such an interpretation of verse 9:29 does not change the position taken by the Fuqahā.

4. From Minhaj et Talibin:

An infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax-collector with disdain; the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, the head bent and the body bowed. The infidel should personally place the money in the balance, while the collector holds him by the beard and strikes him upon both cheeks. These practices, however, according to most jurists, are merely commendable, but not obligatory, as some think.

It appears that al-Nawawi is quoting from another jurist, as he offers his own opposing view as a postscript. Nevertheless, the unambiguous language used makes it clear that there existed no consensus during al-Nawawi’s lifetime that ‘the jizya ought to be taken with gentleness’, as you claimed.

5. Perhaps if you calmed down, you would be able to grasp the point. I was, first of all, refuting your suggestion that the ‘majority’ of medieval Islamic jurists held that jizya should be taken ‘with gentleness’. It is clear that the practices I described are consistent with an exegetical position where aṣ-Ṣaghār is taken to mean humiliation or abasement. Your hysteria about dhimmis being forbidden from riding horses is puzzling; can you not comprehend how such a policy reflects the subordination of non-Muslims? That this is based on the jurists’ interpretation of aṣ-Ṣaghār? If you cannot understand the relationship between exegesis and historical practice then there is little use discussing it with you.

Referencing sources in support of an argument is not an ‘invalid approach’, as you suggest. Without differing opinions on the weight and merit of the sources, we would not be having a debate at all. Were you, for example, guilty of adopting an ‘invalid approach’ when you claimed that ‘Abdel-Haleem does a far better job’ than Bernard Lewis? No. I disagree with your argument, but it is a fair position to take and one that should be debated.

6. I recommend you heed your own advice vis-à-vis neutrality. Nothing in your quote would suggest that I have nefarious intentions with regard to this article. In fact, it is an academic requisite to assess primary sources for their reliability, consistency, etc. Wikipedia offers some guidelines on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. To quote: ‘Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation [. . .] Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.’

By taking al-Nawawi’s work out of context and extrapolating it cover the entire medieval period, you are in violation of this policy.

As for your accusations about my ill-intent, I would posit that your own bizarre reaction to legitimate criticism is evidence enough that you, not I, are guilty of this.

7. Your imputation that I am lying is hardly concordant with Wikiquette, but for the sake of moving the debate forward I will prove that I can access the article. On page 77, Abdel-Haleem quotes Abu Hayyan as saying: ‘lam tataʿarraḍ li-taʿy shayʾminha al-āy’.

One thing I noticed when reading through the article was your tendency to copy directly from his work without making the quotation explicit. This strikes me as being poor practice and may violate rules on plagiarism and/or copyright.

8. In line with Eperoton’s earlier suggestion, it may be a good idea to transfer the entire discussion of the meaning of verse 9:29 to a separate section labelled ‘Interpretation’ (or something along those lines). After all, the exegesis offered by any number of jurists or academics is not found in the Qur’an itself.Yuri321 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

References

العبرة بالمقاصد والمعاني لا بالألفاظ والمباني

How to translate this legal maxim?? My suggestion "consideration is granted to objectives (intentions) and meanings and not to terms and al-mabānī." but I don't know how to translate المباني

Proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya (talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we would need to "unpack" this expression, not just translate it. I'm also unsure about "mabani", but the other words here are technical terms from usul al-fiqh, which would not be properly understood by the lay reader without explanation. Eperoton (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there are any technical terms here. The only issue is with translating "المباني" whose meaning is a mystery to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe lafdh/ma`naa is a technical dichotomy from classical Arabic linguistics, where lafdh corresponds to what one might call "surface form of an utterance" in English technical terminology. At least that's how it seemed to be used in a course of Arabic lectures on usul al-fiqh I listened to ([2]). I'm not well versed in this topic, but there's discussion of it here, for instance [3]. Of course, Maqasid in this context is a complex and contentious notion, with an evolving meaning. We could link "objectives" to this article, though it barely scratches the surface of the classical theory of maqasid. I'm not sure how to do justice to alfadh. There's a nice everyday word for this in German (Wortlaut), but in English the closest non-technical approximation would be something like "wording". My guess would be that mabani is there just for the rhyme, but I could be wrong. Eperoton (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're confusing things, for instance, the maxim does not talk about maqasid as in maqasid al-shari'a. I think you'll gain a better understanding by looking at the context in which al-Buti mentioned this maxim:

ما يلزم بتسمية المال الذي يؤخد منهم (جزية)، ومن القواعد الفقهية المعروفة إن العبرة بالمقاصد والمعاني لا بالألفاظ والمباني. (...) ولعلك تسأل: فهل يجب إذا تحول إسم هذا المال من الجزية إلى الصداقة أو الزكاة، أن يضاعف المبلغ عن القدر المطلوب زكاةً؟ والجواب أن هذا من أحكام الإمامة، فالأمر في تحويل الاسم، وفي تحديد المبلغ منوط بما يراه إمام المسلمين في كل عصر.

I think "wording" would be fine, just wanted to double-check. --TalkJizya (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I would be surprised if the legal maxim itself wasn't referring to maqasid al-shar'ia, but you're right that it doesn't matter in the context of al-Buti's quote. Eperoton (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)